Chappell v. Pliler, et al

Filing 76

ORDER signed by Judge Lawrence K. Karlton on 2/12/2013 ORDERING that the 70 findings and recommendations are ADOPTED in full. Plaintiff's 60 , 67 motions for sanctions are denied. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

REX CHAPPELL,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

vs.
C.K. PLILER, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER
/

15
16

No. 2:04-cv-1183 LKK DAD P

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

17

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

18

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

19

On November 7, 2012, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

20

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

21

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff

22

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

24

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

25

entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

26

by proper analysis.
1

1

In Plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations, Plaintiff argues that

2

the magistrate judge in this case should be disqualified or recused for evidencing bias against the

3

Plaintiff.

4

Recusal is required “only if bias or prejudice stems from an extrajudicial source

5

and not from conduct or rulings made during the course of the proceeding.” Pau v. Yosemite

6

Park and Curry Co., 928 F.2d 880, 885 (9th Cir. 1991) (citing Toth v. TransWorld Airlines, 862

7

F.2d 1381, 1388 (9th Cir. 1988)). Plaintiff’s allegations as to bias appear to be based on the fact

8

that certain findings made by the magistrate judge during the course of these proceedings were

9

unfavorable to Plaintiff. These allegations are insufficient to establish bias on the part of the

10

magistrate judge. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to disqualify or recuse Magistrate Judge Drozd is

11

denied.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1. The findings and recommendations filed November 7, 2012, are adopted in

14
15
16

full; and
2. Plaintiff’s motions for sanctions (Docket No’s 60 and 67) are denied.
DATED: February 12, 2013.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2