ORDER

CAROL MIRANDO, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is Plaintiff pro se Santiago Manuel A.'s Motion for Recusal (Doc. 122), filed on January 12, 2015. Defendants have not filed a response and the time to do so has expired. Plaintiff requests that the undersigned recuse herself from this case, asserting that the undersigned's rulings in this matter are adverse to him, and that the undersigned has a bias against Plaintiff as a pro se party in favor of Defendant as an educational institution.

If a judge is personally biased or prejudiced against a party or in favor of an adverse party, then he shall recuse himself when his "`impartiality might reasonably be questioned.'" In re Walker, 2008 WL 2637649, *4 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§ 144, 455(a)). "The standard is `whether an objective, fully informed lay observer would entertain significant doubt about the judge's impartiality.'" Id. (quoting Christo v. Padgett, 223 F.3d 1324, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000)). "`The general rule is that bias sufficient to disqualify a judge must stem from extrajudicial sources.'" Id. (quoting Thomas v. Tenneco Packaging Co., 293 F.3d 1306, 1329 (11th Cir. 2002)). One exception to this rule is when the judge's remarks in a judicial context demonstrate bias or prejudice. Id. A friction between the court and a party is not sufficient to demonstrate bias. Id. (citations omitted). "Adverse rulings are grounds for appeal but rarely are grounds for recusal . . . ." Id. at *5 (citing Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994)).

Plaintiff's motion contains allegations regarding decisions made by this Court that were unfavorable to him. Yet this does not demonstrate any personal bias by this Court, or show that the undersigned's impartiality might reasonably be questioned.1 Therefore, the motion is denied.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby

ORDERED:

Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal (Doc. 122) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED.