Coffey v. Harris et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Reconsideration re 10 Order Adopting Report and Recommendations 8 re 2 Complaint filed by Kenny Coffey. The Court vacates its November 19, 2013 Order 10 based on lack of timely notice to Coffey of the recommended disposition. Coffey has until December 31, 2013, to file any further objection he wishes to the recommendation 8 . Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 12/5/13. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
KENNY COFFEY
ADC # 86434

v.

PLAINTIFF
5:13-cv-274-DPM-JJV

GRANT HARRIS, Warden; JAMES BANKS,
Warden; MARK CASHION, Warden; KAY HOWELL,
Warden; DANNY BURL, Warden; JENKINS,
Classification Officer; CURTIS-TYLER,
Classification Officer; LISA WALKER, Classification
Officer; DAVID BREWER, Classification Officer; and
V ALARIE WESTBROOK, Classification Officer

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
The Court has received a letter from Coffey, which it directed the Clerk
to file as a motion for reconsideration regarding a partial recommended
disposition, Ng 8, and the Court's adoption of it without objection, Ng 10.
Motion for reconsideration, Ng 17, granted. The Court vacates its 19
November 2013 Order, NQ 10, based on lack of timely notice to Coffey of the
recommended disposition. Coffey has until 31 December 2013 to file any
further objection he wishes to the recommendation, Ng 8.
Coffey's various assertions of bias on the part of the Magistrate Judge
are unfounded. Adverse rulings, for example, do not establish bias. And the

October date in the recommendation is obviously a typographical error. No
basis appears of record to reasonably question the Magistrate Judge's
impartiality. And the Court cautions Coffey against making any similar
unsubstantiated allegations in the future.
The Magistrate Judge is handling preliminary matters, and making
recommendations on dispositive matters. This is how most prisoner§ 1983
claims are handled in this Court. Local Rule 72.1; FED R. CIV P. 72(b). Coffey
did not consent, at the start of this case, to the Magistrate Judge acting as the
District Court. This was his choice: Coffey has thus preserved his right to
have the undersigned continue presiding over this case. But Coffey cannot
dictate whether a Magistrate Judge assists this Court by handling nondispositive matters and by making recommendations.
So Ordered.

D.P. Marshall Jr. f/
United States District Judge

-2-