Mathis v. Goldberg et al
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION (c/m to Plaintiff 8/14/13 sat). Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 8/14/13. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
BURMAN Y. MATHIS
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 12-1777
:
DAVID S. GOLDBERG, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for review in this breach of
contract and fraud case are the motions for recusal (ECF No. 50)
and for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 51)
filed by Plaintiff Burman Mathis.
The issues have been briefed,
and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary.
Local Rule 105.6.
For the following reasons, the motions will
be denied.
I.
Background
On February 12, 2013, the court issued a Memorandum Opinion
and
order
dismissing
some
of
Plaintiff’s
claims
against
Defendants Goldberg and Skok, and entering summary judgment on
those
remaining.
(ECF
Nos.
27,
28);
see
also
Mathis
v.
Goldberg, No. 12-1777, 2013 WL 524708 (D.Md. Feb. 12, 2013).
The facts of this case are contained in that memorandum opinion
and will not be recounted here.
motion for reconsideration.
On March 4, Plaintiff filed a
(ECF No. 30).
In the following two
weeks, Plaintiff filed an additional nine motions, making nearly
identical
arguments
to
those
contained
in
his
(ECF Nos. 29, 31-35, 40-42).1
reconsideration.
motion
for
On March 25,
2013, the court issued a memorandum opinion and order denying
all of Plaintiff’s motions.
(ECF Nos. 44, 45); see also see
also Mathis v. Goldberg, No. 12-1777, 2013 WL 1231898 (D.Md.
Mar. 25, 2013).
On March 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed a third
motion for recusal and a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint.
(ECF Nos. 50, 51).
Again, those motions made nearly
identical arguments as those contained in Plaintiff’s original
motion for reconsideration.
On April 5, 2013 Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal from
this court’s Order that issued on March 25, 2013.
On
April
18,
2013,
Defendant
Plaintiff’s pending motions.
II.
Skok
filed
an
(ECF No. 53).
opposition
to
(ECF No. 56).
Analysis
As a general rule, “the filing of a timely and sufficient
notice
of
appeal
immediately
transfers
jurisdiction
of
all
matters relating to the appeal from the district court to the
court of appeals.”
Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal v. United
1
These motions included motions for a hearing pursuant to
Federal
Rule
of
Evidence
201(e)
(ECF
No.
29),
for
reconsideration (ECF No. 30), for sanctions (ECF No. 32), for
recusal (ECF Nos. 31, 33), and for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 34,
35, 40, 41, 42).
2
States, 947 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th Cir. 1991); see also Griggs v.
Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58 (1982) (per
curiam) (noting that “[t]he filing of a notice of appeal is an
event of jurisdictional significance — it confers jurisdiction
on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its
control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal”)
(citations omitted).
of the appeal.
1190.
There is an exception for matters in aid
Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal, 947 F.2d at
In Plaintiff’s motion for recusal and in his motion for
leave to file a second amended complaint, Plaintiff requests
that “this Court stay review of this motion until after appeal,
which Plaintiff will file shortly.”
(ECF Nos. 50, at 1); see
also (ECF No. 51, at 1).
Both
of
Plaintiff’s
motions
rehash
arguments
that
this
court has already considered, and they come more than a month
after the final decision issued and judgment was entered.
At
the present stage of the case, there is nothing more for the
undersigned to do in the case.
United
States
Court
of
The judgment is on appeal to the
Appeals
for
the
Fourth
Circuit.
As
Plaintiff acknowledges, this court’s further consideration of
his arguments will not aid the appeal.
Therefore, the motions
for recusal and for leave to file a second amended complaint are
moot and will be considered, if at all, in the event that the
case should be remanded or the appellate court so directs.
3
See
Thomas v. Northeastern Univ., 470 F.App’x 70, 71-72 (3d Cir.
2012) (per curiam) (affirming district court’s denial of motion
for leave to file an amended complaint filed after dismissal of
original complaint because pending appeal divested the district
court of jurisdiction); Christian v. United States, No. MJG-061437, 2008 WL 6582216, at *2 (D.Md. Mar. 12, 2008) (denying
motion
for
recusal
filed
after
summary
judgment
was
entered
because pending appeal divested district court of jurisdiction).
V.
Conclusion
For
denied.
the
foregoing
reasons,
Plaintiff’s
motions
will
A separate Order will follow.
/s/_____
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
be
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?