REARDON v. MONDELLI et al

Filing 69

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/25/2017. (TH, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

JOHN E. REARDON,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:15-cv-05520-NLH-AMD
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

OFFICER MONDELLI, et al.,
Defendants.

Appearances:
JOHN E. REARDON
1 JOANS LANE
BERLIN, NJ 08009
Appearing pro se
DEAN R. WITTMAN
MATTHEW B. WIELICZKO
MICHAEL J. HUNTOWSKI
ZELLER & WIELICZKO LLP
120 Haddontowne Court
CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034
On behalf of the officer defendants
BENJAMIN HENRY ZIEMAN
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY
25 MARKET STREET
P.O. BOX 116
TRENTON, NJ 08625
On behalf of the judicial defendants
HILLMAN, District Judge
This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion
for recusal [62]; and
Plaintiff requests this Court’s recusal in this matter

because the Court has deliberately denied his request for
default judgment against the defendants; and
On April 28, 2016 and October 5, 2016, the Court denied
Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment because he had not
demonstrated that he had properly served the defendants or
obtained a Clerk’s entry of default, see Docket No. 47, 60; Fed.
R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; and
To date, Plaintiff has not established proper service of
the defendants, and he has not obtained a Clerk’s entry of
default as to any defendant, which precludes this Court from
considering an application by Plaintiff for default judgment;
and
Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), “any justice, judge or magistrate
[judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any
proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be
questioned,” and this section requires judicial recusal “if a
reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect
that the judge would have actual knowledge” of his interest or
bias in a case, Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.,
486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988); In re Kensington Intern. Ltd., 368
F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004); and
The Court finding that Plaintiff’s basis for recusal has no
merit;
Therefore,
2

IT IS on this

25th

day of

April

, 2017

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal [62] be, the
same hereby is, DENIED.

s/ Noel L. Hillman
NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J.

At Camden, New Jersey

3