UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. TERRY
ORDER signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 08/09/2017 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation, that Defendant's motion to quash (Doc. 5 ), motion to transfer case (Doc. 6 ), motion for recusal ((Doc. 7 ), motion for sanction (Doc. 10 ), motion to dismiss (Doc. 16 ), motion to alter and vacate the court's September 8, 2016 Order (Doc. 44 ), and motions for judicial disqualification (Doc. 45 , 50 ) are DENIED. (Garland, Leah)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
GARY IVAN TERRY,
The Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
(Doc. 40) was filed with the court in accordance with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b) and, on August 31, 2016, was served on the parties in
this action (Doc. 41).
Defendant objected to the Recommendation.
Also before the court are Defendant’s pro se motion to
alter and vacate the court’s September 8, 2016 Order (Doc. 44),
and two motions for judicial disqualification. (Docs. 45, 50.)
The Government has responded (Docs. 46, 47, 51), and Defendant has
replied (Docs. 48, 49, 52).
objections and briefs to 20 pages.
L.R. 7.3(d) & 72.4. 1
was previously warned of these limitations.
(Doc. 42 at 1.)
Consequently, the court will not consider Defendant’s briefs and
As of May 1, 2017, the limitations were based on word count (which must
be certified by the filer) or pages.
No post-May 1, 2017 filing of
Defendant appears to violate the current rules.
The court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Magistrate Judge’s report to which objection was made (Doc. 40)
and has made a de novo determination, which is in accord with the
Defendant’s objections (Doc. 43) and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s
Defendant’s motion to alter and vacate this court’s September
8, 2016 Order (Doc. 44) was filed October 5, 2016.
To the extent
it is considered as a motion to amend judgment, it is timely under
disfavored, however, and may be granted “(1) to accommodate an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) to account for new
evidence not available at trial; or (3) to correct a clear error
of law or prevent manifest injustice.”
Pac. Ins. Co. v. Am. Nat’l
Fire Ins. Co., 148 F.3d 396, 403 (4th Cir. 1998).
not use the motion “to raise arguments which could have been raised
prior to the issuance of the judgment, nor . . . to argue a case
under a novel legal theory that the party had the ability to
address in the first place.” Id. No basis for altering or vacating
the court’s Order applies here.
To the extent the motion could
otherwise be considered in the court’s discretion, the court denies
it as well because there was no error in the court’s ruling.
Finally, Defendant has filed two motions to disqualify the
undersigned as judge in this case.
(Docs. 45, 50.)
motions are based on the fact that this court as well as other
courts have previously ruled against him, or on other meritless
disqualify every judge in this district.
The motions are wholly
lacking in merit and will be denied.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s motion to quash (Doc.
5), motion to transfer case (Doc. 6), motion for recusal ((Doc.
7), motion for sanction (Doc. 10), motion to dismiss (Doc. 16),
motion to alter and vacate the court’s September 8, 2016 Order
(Doc. 44), and motions for judicial disqualification (Doc. 45, 50)
Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
August 9, 2017
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?