Filing 69

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

Download PDF
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

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?