Pushkin v. Nussbaum et al

Filing 269

OPINION/ORDER DENYING re 258 Application/Petition for Recusal filed by DAVID B. PUSHKIN. Signed by Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh on 10/18/13. (DD, )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
DR. DAViD 13. PUSI-IK1N.
Plaintiff.

:

Hon. Dennis NI. Cavanaugli

:

OPINION AND ORDER

V.

Civil Action No. 12-cv00324 (DMC) (JI3C)

BETH R. NUSSBAUM, RHI
ENH RIAINMEN1 INC TIMOFHY I
QUiNT IVAN, MERITAIN HEALTH,
INC.. KEVIN L. BREMER, ESQ.,
ARONSOHN WEINER AND SALERNO,:
L.L.C., GEICO, PREMIER PRIZM
SQl U I IONS LISA ARI)RON GINA
11 Gl DOMINIC SPAVLN LA P’\UL
FEI DMAN
Defendants.

DENNIS M. CAVANAUGH. U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon a motion filed by I)avid
B. Pushkin (“Plaintifr)
seeking recusal of Judge Dennis M. Cavanaugh. U.S.D.J. (Sept.
4. 2013. ECF No. 258). Plaintiff
seeks to disqualily Judge Cavanaugh under 28 U.S.C. §455
on the grounds of bias. Specifically.
Plaintiff contends that Judge Cavanaugh’s failure to address Plainti
ffs request for a time
extension demonstrates a bias towards disabled litigants and warran
ts the Judges recusal.
28 U.S.C. §455(a) provides that “any justice, judge, or magistrate
[magistrate judgel of
the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which
his impartiality might
reasonably he questioned.” Section 455(b) requires recusal if the
judge ‘has a personal bias or

prejudice concerning a party, or personal know
ledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the
proceeding.” The test for recusal is ‘whether
a reasonable person. with knowledge of all the
facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiali
ty might reasonably be questioned.” Inre
Kensington int’l Ltd., 353 F.3d 21 1. 220

(3d

Cir. 2003). “The assessment is thus an objective

one where the Court asks whether the record reaso
nably supports the appearance of prejudice or
bias suggestive of a high degree of favoritism or
antagonism towards a party such that it would
be impossible for the judge to make a fair judgmen
t.” U.S. v. Cox. No. 11-99. 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 78731 (D.N.J. May 31, 2012) (citing U.S.
v. Wecht, 484 F.3d 194, 213 (3d Cir. 2007)).
An

objective assessment of the record demonstrates
no indication of bias. First, Judge

Cavanaugh gave Plaintiff the opportunity to amen
d his deficient complaint. (Apr. 25, 2013, IZCE
No. 22$).

In addition, Judge Cavanaugh gave Plaintiff a sixty
day extension to file his Second

Amended Complaint. (May 14, 2013, ECF No. 230)
. The fact that Judge Cavanaugh did not
respond to a request for an extension to submit oppo
sition papers is insuflicient to demonstrate
prejudice or bias.
After considering all submissions and finding that Plain
tif[s

motion

is based on

unsubstantiated allegations of bias;
IT

is this day of October. 20l3

ORDEREI) Plaintiff’s Motion for Recusal is deni
ed,

I)enms M. Cavanauh, L.L
Original:
cc:

Clerks Office
I-Ton. James B. Clark, U.S.M.J.
All Counsel of Record
File

.