Broughton v. Logan, et al

Filing 441

ORDER denying 438 Motion for Recusal. The status conference scheduled for September 22, 2017 shall proceed as scheduled. Signed by US District Judge Martin K. Reidinger on 9/13/2017. Sent to Celeste Broughton at 2529 White Oak RoadRaleigh, NC 27609 via US Mail. (Briggeman, N.)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 5:16-cv-00302-RE

In re: CELESTE G. BROUGHTON,

Debtor.

)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Debtor's "Notice and Motion"
[DE-438], which the Court construes as a motion for recusal and for
cancellation of the status conference scheduled for September 22, 2017, and
the Debtor's "Notice of Appeal" [DE-439], by which the Debtor purports to
appeal the Notice issued by the Clerk of Court setting the September 22,
2017 status conference.
A motion for recusal should be granted only if the judge's "impartiality
might reasonably be questioned." 28 U.S.C.A. § 455(a). Adverse judicial
rulings alone, however, "almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or
partiality motion." United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008)
(quoting Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994)). Furthermore,
"opinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events
occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings,

do not constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a
deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment
impossible."

lsh

Here, the Debtor asserts that the undersigned has "prejudged this
case" and has "condone[d] the massive corruption of the Courts .... " [DE438 at 1]. While couched in terms of bias and corruption, the Debtor clearly
takes issue with the Court's rulings that were adverse to her. The Debtor's
dissatisfaction with the Court's prior rulings, however, is not a sufficient
grounds for recusal. The Debtor has not articulated any basis to find that the
undersigned's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Accordingly, the
motion for recusal is denied.
The Court notes that the Debtor has filed a Notice of Appeal,
apparently seeking to appeal the setting of the September 22, 2017 status
conference.

The propriety of the filing of this Notice of Appeal shall be

addressed at the September 22, 2017 status conference. Accordingly, the
Debtor is advised that the status conference scheduled for September 22,
2017 shall proceed as scheduled.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Debtor's "Notice and Motion"
[DE-438] is DENIED. The status conference scheduled for September 22,
2017 shall proceed as scheduled.
2

Entered this day the

day of September, 2017.

3