Scott v. Blanton et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 6 Motion for Recusal.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens on 3/11/2025. (JWM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
OCALA DIVISION
EDDIE SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 5:25-cv-14-TPB-PRL

CRYSTAL BLANTON and the CITY
OF OCALA,
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter is before the Court upon referral of pro se Plaintiff Eddie Scott’s motion to
recuse the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff argues that the
undersigned should be recused because Plaintiff disagrees with decisions made in this case
and a prior case involving Plaintiff, and because “Judge Lammens didn’t allow me to exercise
my constitutional rights.” (Doc. 6 at 1). A review of Plaintiff’s motion reflects that the alleged
basis for recusal is Plaintiff’s disagreement with the undersigned’s judicial rulings.
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a) is an objective one, requiring a court
to ask “whether an objective, disinterested lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying
the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge’s
impartiality.” Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). To satisfy the requirements
of § 455(a) a party must offer facts, not merely allegations, that evidence partiality. See United
States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999) (“[a] charge of partiality must be
supported by some factual basis ... recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or
highly tenuous speculation’”). A party should not be permitted to recuse a judge on

unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation. United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d
1556, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986.) “[I]f this occurred the price of maintaining the purity of the
appearance of justice would be the power of litigants or third parties to exercise a veto over
the assignment of judges.” Id.
Plaintiff’s motion is based upon speculation and his subjective disagreement with the
Court’s legal conclusions, rather than upon any facts that evidence impartiality by the
undersigned. Disagreement with the Court’s legal conclusions is not a basis for recusal, nor
is the fact that the undersigned previously entered a report and recommendation in a prior
case recommending that Plaintiff’s claims be dismissed. Notably, Plaintiff offers no other
basis for his assertion that the undersigned is biased or prejudiced against him other than prior
rulings.
Therefore, because Plaintiff’s motion fails to state sufficient grounds for recusal,
Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any reasonable individual could entertain significant
doubt about the impartiality of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C § 455(a). Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s motion for recusal (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on March 11, 2025.

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

-2-