PER CURIAM. Nurjhan B. Govan appeals following the district court’s partial grants of
summary judgment, and its subsequent entry of judgment on a jury verdict as to the remaining claims, in this employment-discrimination matter. We affirm. On appeal, Govan argues that the district court judge was biased, because the judge ignored the law and sided with defendants in granting
summary judgment. She did not seek the district court judge’s recusal below, however, and even if she had, she could not have sought recusal based on adverse rulings. See Lefkowitz v. Citi-Equity Group, Inc., 146 F.3d 609, 611-12 (8th Cir.1998). Govan also complains that the district court refused to continue the trial, but we see nothing in the record to suggest that the court abused its discretion. See United States v. Vesey, 330 F.3d 1070, 1071-72 (8th Cir. 2003) (continuances are generally not favored and should be granted only when requesting party has shown compelling reason; standard of review).
Finally, Go-van makes numerous contentions about her appointed counsel’s alleged poor performance, but this is not a basis for reversal. See Glick v. Henderson, 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir.1988) (there is no statutory or constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel in civil case). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. . The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri. . In their brief on appeal, appellees also defend the
summary judgment rulings, but we address only the arguments that Govan raises in her appellate brief.