SIR ARTHUR HEIM FOR CITIZENS SUIT v. U.S. ATTRONEY GENERAL ERIC HOLDER, 8:11CV376. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120405861
Visitors: 7
Filed: Mar. 29, 2012
Latest Update: Mar. 29, 2012
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Objection to Memorandum and Order (filing no. 37 ) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38 ). The Motions are extremely difficult to decipher. As best as the court can tell, the Objection requests that the undersigned recuse himself because "[t]he court is Evil, Vile Manichees." (Filing No. 37 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Motions and the record
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge. This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Objection to Memorandum and Order (filing no. 37 ) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38 ). The Motions are extremely difficult to decipher. As best as the court can tell, the Objection requests that the undersigned recuse himself because "[t]he court is Evil, Vile Manichees." (Filing No. 37 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Motions and the record ..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, Senior District Judge.
This matter is before the court on Plaintiff's Objection to Memorandum and Order (filing no. 37) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38). The Motions are extremely difficult to decipher. As best as the court can tell, the Objection requests that the undersigned recuse himself because "[t]he court is Evil, Vile Manichees." (Filing No. 37 at CM/ECF p. 1.) The court has carefully reviewed Plaintiff's Motions and the record in this matter. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. 455(a), the court finds that there is nothing indicating that the court's "impartiality might reasonably be questioned" or that there is any other basis for recusal or reassignment in this matter. Furthermore, Petitioner has not filed an affidavit sufficient to trigger the provisions of 28 U.SC. § 144. Further, the court finds that, at this stage of the proceedings, no pretrial hearing is necessary.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's Objection to Memorandum and Order (filing no. 37) and Motion for Pretrial Hearing (filing no. 38) are denied.
Source: Leagle
