Sir Arthur Heim for Citizens Suit v. U.S. Attorney Generals Eric Holder et al

Filing 40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- Plaintiffs Objection to Memorandum and Order (filing no. 37 ) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38 ) are denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
SIR ARTHUR HEIM FOR
CITIZENS SUIT, and United States
of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ERIC
HOLDER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:11CV376

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff’s Objection to Memorandum and
Order (filing no. 37) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38). The Motions are
extremely difficult to decipher. As best as the court can tell, the Objection requests
that the undersigned recuse himself because “[t]he court is Evil, Vile Manichees.”
(Filing No. 37 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff’s Motions
and the record in this matter. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 455(a), the court finds that
there is nothing indicating that the court’s “impartiality might reasonably be
questioned” or that there is any other basis for recusal or reassignment in this matter.
Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed an affidavit sufficient to trigger the provisions
of 28 U.SC. § 144. Further, the court finds that, at this stage of the proceedings, no
pretrial hearing is necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff’s Objection to Memorandum and
Order (filing no. 37) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38) are denied.
DATED this 29th day of March, 2012.

BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
2