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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?