Reeder v. BSI Financial Services, Inc. et al

Filing 46

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 41 MOTION TO RECUSE. Signed by Chief Judge S. Thomas Anderson on 2/27/19. (mbm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION

MARK REEDER,
Plaintiff,
v.
BSI FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.;
KEYLINK, INC.; NATIONAL VENDOR
MANAGEMENT SERVICES; CHRISTINA
TRUST, A DIVISION OF WILMINGTON
SAVINGS FUND SOCIETY, FSB, AS
TRUSTEE FOR THE HILLDALE TRUST;
THE HILLDALE TRUST; BANK OF
AMERICA, N.A., FAY SERVICING, LLC;
FIVE STAR FIELD SERVICE, LLC;
STONEY W. HAYES,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No.: 1:17-cv-01170-STA-egb

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO RECUSE

Before the Court is Plaintiff Mark Reeder’s Motion to Recuse, which was filed on
January 22, 2019. (ECF No. 41.) Plaintiff correctly cites 28 U.S.C. § 455 as the statutory basis
for a judge’s disqualification. His reliance, however, is futile. Because there is no basis for
disqualification, Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.
Subsection (a) of 28 U.S.C.§ 455 provides that a district judge “shall disqualify himself
in any proceeding in which his impartiality might be reasonably questioned.” Such
disqualification must be based on a judge’s personal conduct and bias—meaning that the
conduct and bias warranting disqualification must be unrelated to the judge’s view of the law and
his judicial functions. Green v. Nevers, 111 F.3d 1295, 1303-04 (6th Cir. 1997). “Judicial

rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky v.
United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
In his Motion, Plaintiff states that he has “good reason to believe that [this Court] cannot
hear this case in a fair and impartial manner.” (Id.) In supporting his belief, Plaintiff asserts that
it would have been “obvious to any fair and impartial judge” that Plaintiff’s circumstances and
his property’s value warranted the granting of injunctive relief. (Id.) Plaintiff’s Motion is, thus,
based upon Plaintiff’s disagreement with this Court’s Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for
Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 40). Although Plaintiff may subjectively question the Court’s
impartiality, this subjective belief, regardless of its sincerity, is not enough. Plaintiff’s mere
disappointment is not grounds for recusal. Because it lacks merit, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: February 27, 2019