Dodson v. United States of America

Filing 26

ORDER Affirming 23 Order on Motion for Recusal; and Overruling 25 Objection filed by George A. Dodson, III. Signed by District Judge Laurie J. Michelson (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
GEORGE A. DODSON, III,
Plaintiff,

Case No. 17-11472
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford

v.
DAVID SALAGAR,
Defendant.

ORDER AFFIRMING MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RECUSAL [19]
Plaintiff George Dodson, III filed a pro se complaint on May 8, 2017, requesting that
certain firearms and ammunition seized by the Detroit Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
Explosives (ATF) be released to his acquaintance, Gameel Gobah. (ECF No. 1.) The case was
reassigned to this Court as it related to a prior case addressing the same issues. Dissatisfied with
the Court’s ruling in the prior case, Dodson filed a motion for recusal. (ECF No. 19.) Magistrate
Judge Stafford, to whom all pretrial matters have been referred (ECF No. 16), issued an Order
denying the motion. (ECF No. 23.) Dodson then filed a “statement” disagreeing with the
Magistrate Judge’s decision. (ECF No. 25.)
The Court will construe Dodson’s filing as an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Order.
The Court will overrule Dodson’s objection and affirm the Order.
I.
The Magistrate Judge’s Order resolved a nondispositive motion. See E.D. Mich. LR
7.1(e)(2). Therefore, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(a), the Court will uphold the order unless it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” United

States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001). A ruling is “‘clearly erroneous’ when, although
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court. . . is left with the definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been committed.” Hagaman v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 958 F.2d 684, 690
(6th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). A legal conclusion is “contrary to law ‘when it fails to apply
misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.’” Ford Motor Co. v. United States,
No. 08-12960, 2009 WL 2922875, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 9, 2009) (citation omitted).
II.
Dodson filed a motion requesting that Judges Steeh, Cox, and Michelson recuse themselves
from all of his pending cases and that his cases be transferred to Judge Roberts. (ECF No. 19.) He
argues that the undersigned has “demonstrated extreme prejudice in matters involving legal and
property rights and proper hearing procedures.” (ECF No. 19, PageID.129.) The Magistrate Judge
found that Dodson failed to properly attach an affidavit, as required by statute, and that he failed
to identify “any extrajudicial source, any association outside of the proceedings, or any basis other
than what the Judges have learned from the case that justifies recusal.” (ECF No. 23, PageID.141–
142.) Dodson then filed a statement, notarized and styled as an affidavit, disagreeing with the
Magistrate Judge’s decision. (ECF No. 25.) But nothing in the substance of his argument, or the
fact that his statement is notarized, identifies a clear error in the Magistrate Judge’s Order that
Dodson failed to establish that the Court has personal bias towards Dodson that stems from an
extrajudicial source. (ECF No. 23, PageID.141 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 455(b)(1); Wheeler v. Southland
Corp., 875 F.2d 1246 (6th Cir. 1989).) Instead, the content of the statement revolves around his
disagreement with the Court’s decision in his prior case. But “disagreement with a judge’s decision
or ruling is not a basis for disqualification or upsetting judicial rulings.” Downer v. Rite Aid Corp.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96497, *14–15 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 29, 2011) (citing Liteky v. United States,

2

510 U.S. 540, 555–56 (1994)). And that decision involved careful analysis of and attention to
Dodson’s arguments after several hearings and opportunity for briefing.
Dodson’s objection will be overruled, and the Magistrate Judge’s Order will be affirmed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Laurie J. Michelson
LAURIE J. MICHELSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: February 11, 2019

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing document was served on the
attorneys and/or parties of record by electronic means or U.S. Mail on February 11, 2019.
s/William Barkholz
Case Manager to
Honorable Laurie J. Michelson

3