United States of America v. $88,029.08, More or Less, in United States Currency
Filing
132
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 131 MOTION by Katherine Anne Hoover, John F. Tomasic to Require Competent Article III Judge and Remove Magistrate Mary Stanley; to the extent movants seek reconsideration of the 9/9/2011 108 ruling, that request is denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/9/2011. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.
Civil Action No. 2:10-1087
$88,029.08, More or Less,
in United States Currency,
Defendant
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending is the motion filed November 8, 2011, by
interested parties Katherine A. Hoover, M.D., and John F. Tomasic
styled as a “MOTION TO REQUIRE COMPETENT ARTICLE III JUDGE AND
REMOVE MAGISTRATE MARY STANLEY.”
The movants appear concerned about two recent events.
First, they disagree with the magistrate judge’s October 27,
2011, decision directing the Clerk to send filed documents to
movants by regular mail at their address in the Bahamas “knowing
that mail takes about three weeks.”
(Mot. at 1).
In the October
27, 2011, order, the magistrate judge fully explained her
decision:
The court notes that the interested parties have
declined to provide their electronic mail address or to
obtain a PACER account. (ECF No. 126.) That is their
choice, although it is a foolish one; by having a PACER
account, the interested parties can monitor the docket
sheet in their case and review copies of documents
almost as soon as they are filed, rather than awaiting
delivery. As . . . noted, the Clerk will not send
documents to the interested parties by Federal Express
or other expensive delivery system; in the absence of
an electronic mail address for the interested parties,
the Clerk will use standard United States Postal
Service delivery. The interested parties will therefore
experience delay in learning of developments in their
case. Moreover, the court will not entertain any
excuses from the interested parties as to why they are
late in filing a response or may fail to file a
response.
(Ord. at 1-2).
The order reflects the magistrate judge’s
commendable desire that movants be fully, and timely, informed
concerning case events.
Moreover, Dr. Hoover has since provided an email
address to the Clerk by which notice of filed documents will be
transmitted forthwith to her and to Mr. Tomasic (with whom she
apparently shares a conventional address) via the CM/ECF system.1
So long as that email address remains active, Dr. Hoover and Mr.
Tomasic will, in lieu of mailing, thereby be alerted immediately
to filings entered on the docket.
There is no basis to challenge
the magistrate judge’s impartiality.
The magistrate judge is
vested in this action with the authority to make the decisions
she has made, and to offer the recommendations she has submitted,
1
The docket sheet now reflects an email address for Dr.
Hoover. On November 4, 2011, the Clerk sent two orders to Dr.
Hoover via that email address.
2
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the November 8, 2010, referral
order.
Second, movants appear dissatisfied with the September
9, 2011, order entered by the undersigned denying their request
to certify a ruling for interlocutory appeal.
The court’s
analysis follows:
The court of appeals has observed that section 1292(b)
“should be used sparingly . . . .” Myles v. Laffitte,
881 F.2d 125, 127 (4th Cir. 1989).
The proposed subject of the appeal does not
constitute a “controlling question of law as to which
there is substantial ground for difference of opinion .
. . .” Id. § 1292(b). The court, accordingly, ORDERS
that the motion to certify be, and it hereby is,
denied.
(Ord. at 1-2).
As is reflected above, the court’s September 9,
2011, order is supported by controlling authority.
To the extent
movants seek reconsideration of that ruling, the court ORDERS
that the request be, and it hereby is, denied.
Based upon the foregoing, the court further ORDERS that
the motion be, and it hereby is, denied.
The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written
opinion and order to all counsel of record and any unrepresented
parties.
DATED: November 9, 2011
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge
3
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?