*1 Before VAUGHN , SEITZ , and TRAYNOR , Justices.

O R D E R

This 10 th day of August 2017, after careful consideration of the appellant’s opening brief, the State’s motion to affirm, the appellant’s response to the motion, and the record, we conclude that the judgment below should be affirmed on the basis of, and for the reasons stated in, the Superior Court’s well-reasoned decisions dated May 25, 2017 and May 30, 2017. The Superior Court did not err in concluding that the appellant’s fourth motion for postconviction relief was procedurally barred and that the appellant failed to overcome the procedural hurdles. We also find no abuse of the Superior Court’s discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to recuse the assigned judge.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT: /s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice 2