ORDER AND REASONS

SUSIE MORGAN, District Judge.

Before the Court is a motion for recusal and disqualification filed by Larry L. Coupel and Natalie A. Coupel (collectively, "the Coupels"), the appellants and debtors in the above-captioned matter.1 The Coupels seek the recusal of the undersigned judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

On February 8, 2016, the Coupels filed two Notices of Appeal and Statements of Election, appealing to the district court two Orders of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.2 Both appeals were allotted to the undersigned. In sum, the Coupels appeal (1) the Bankruptcy Court's Order denying their motion for contempt for violation of the automatic stay and for damages, costs, and attorney's fees and to void and cancel judgments;3 and (2) the Bankruptcy Court's Order granting in part and denying in part a motion to determine that the automatic stay does not apply to postpetition acts, filed by Eli Kfoury, the appellee.4 Apparently, Kfoury's attorney in a related state-court action is Martin Triche, the brother of United States District Court Judge Jane Triche Milazzo, a judge on this Court. According to the Coupels, they "may have" a direct cause of action against Martin Triche under Section 362(k) of the Bankruptcy Code, as the Coupels argue Triche willfully and knowingly violated an automatic stay imposed under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a).5 The Coupels seek to have the undersigned judge recused under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), arguing that because Martin Triche is the brother of another federal judge in this district, the impartiality of the undersigned "could reasonably be questioned."6

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Title 28, United States Code, Section 455(a) requires the disqualification of a judge in any proceeding in which his or her impartiality might reasonably be questioned.7 "In order to determine whether a court's impartiality is reasonably in question, the objective inquiry is whether a well-informed, thoughtful and objective observer would question the court's impartiality."8 Moreover, "the purpose of § 455(a), and the principle of recusal itself, is not just to prevent actual partiality, but to avoid the appearance of partiality."9 In assessing a motion to recuse under section 455(a), the court should be guided "by an independent examination of the facts and circumstances of the particular claim."10

In this case, recusal under section 455(a) is not warranted.11 Section 455(a) requires that a judge be recused "in any proceeding in which his [or her] impartiality might reasonably be questioned."12 Section 455(a) claims must be analyzed in light of the particular facts at hand. The Court finds that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned by a well-informed, thoughtful, and objective observer in this case.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), the motion to recuse filed by Debtor-Appellants Larry L. Coupel and Natalie A. Coupel is DENIED.