Gillispie v. Miami Township et al

Filing 54

SCHEDULING ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE - It is hereby ORDERED that any party intending to file a response to the Motion for Recusal do so not later than May 16, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/7/2014. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
ROGER DEAN GILLISPIE,
Plaintiff,

-

vs

:

Case No. 3:13-cv-416
District Judge Thomas M. Rose
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-

CITY OF MIAMI TOWNSHIP, et al.,

Defendants.

:

SCHEDULING ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE

This case is before the Court on Motion for Recusal of Defendants Miami Township,
Matthew Scott Moore, Tim Wilson, Thomas Angel, Marvin Scothorn, John DiPietro, and
Stephen Gray (collectively the “Miami Township Defendants”)(Doc. No. 49). The Motion was
filed on May 1, 2014. Under S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2, the time within which other parties might
filed memoranda relating to that Motion would ordinarily expire May 27, 2014.
Motions to recuse are addressed in the first instance to the judge sought to be
disqualified. United States v. Studley, 783 F.2d 934, 940 (9th Cir. 1988); In re Drexel Burnham
Lambert, Inc., 861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2nd Cir. 1988) reh’g denied, 869 F.2d 116; MacNeil v.
Americold Corp., 735 F. Supp. 32, 36 (D. Mass. 1990)(specifically applying rule to United States
magistrate judges). If the Motion were to be denied, the moving defendants would have a right
to appeal to Judge Rose. At the same time, there are other matters pending in the case: several

1

Defendants have pending motions to dismiss, the Miami Township Defendants have filed a Joint
Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 53), and the deadline for service of process
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) is fast approaching.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that any party intending to file a response to the
Motion for Recusal do so not later than May 16, 2014.
May 7, 2014.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2