United States of America v. $88,029.08, More or Less, in United States Currency

Filing 174

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying without prejudice 160 MOTION motion for a Certificate of Reasonable Cause; denying 163 MOTION for Recusal. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/18/2013. (cc: attys; case manager 4CCA; any unrepresented party) (tmr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No. 2:10-1087
(Lead action)

$88,029.08, MORE OR LESS,
IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY,
Defendant
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
v.

Civil Action No. 2:11-0101
(Consolidated action)

$27,671.50, MORE OR LESS,
IN UNITED STATES CURRENCY
Defendant
Interested parties:
Katherine Anne Hoover, M.D.
John F. Tomasic
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is the United States' motion for a certificate of
reasonable cause, filed October 16, 2012, and the interested parties'
motion to recuse, filed November 1, 2012.

Prior to the United States' filing its response to the
motion to recuse or its reply respecting its motion for a certificate
of reasonable cause, the interested parties noticed an appeal on
November 21, 2012, of the September 28, 2012, Judgment.

Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 62.1(a) provides pertinently as follows:
(a) Relief Pending Appeal. If a timely motion is made for
relief that the court lacks authority to grant because of
an appeal that has been docketed and is pending, the court
may:
(1) defer considering the motion;
(2) deny the motion; or
(3) state either that it would grant the motion
if the court of appeals remands for that purpose
or that the motion raises a substantial issue.
Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 62.1(a).
Pending disposition of the appeal, the court ORDERS that
the motion for a certificate of reasonable cause be, and it hereby
is, denied without prejudice.

Respecting the motion to recuse, the

interested parties appear to assert that inasmuch as the $88,029.08
and $27,671.50 ("seized funds") at issue in this action were
originally on deposit at WesBanco, and that WesBanco appears on the
recusal list of the undersigned, disqualification is required.
WesBanco is not a party to this action.

According to the

return on the applicable seizure warrant, which was filed March 30,
2010, in In re Seizure of Proceeds on Deposit in Account No.
2

XXXXXX3002 and Account No. XXXXXX7905, Wesbanco Bank, Inc. Wheeling
WV, in the name of Katherine A. Hoover, 2:10-mj-29, a WesBanco
manager paid over the seized funds to the United States Marshal's
Service on March 2, 2010.

The lead and consolidated actions were

then assigned to the undersigned months later, respectively on
September 29, 2010, and February 11, 2011.
There is no indication that WesBanco continues to have any
interest in the seized funds.

The institution is not listed as

either a claimant or an interested party herein.
basis for disqualification.

There is thus no

The court, accordingly, ORDERS that the

motion to recuse be, and hereby is, denied.
The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this written
opinion and order to the appropriate case manager at the Clerk's
Office in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit,
all counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties.
DATED:

January 18, 2013

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3