Opinion
2:21-cv-00194-FLA (MAAx)
11-02-2022
RG ABRAMS INSURANCE, et al. Plaintiffs, v. LAW OFFICES OF C.R. ABRAMS, et al., Defendants. AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [DKT. 384]
FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants' Updated Motion for Terminating, Issue, Monetary Sanctions, and Attorneys' Fees (“Motion,” Dkt. 353), the related filings and submissions, other records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 384). The court also has reviewed Defendants' July 19, 2022 Objections to the Report and Recommendation (“Objections,” Dkt. 395), as well as Plaintiffs' August 2, 2022 Response to the Objections (“Response,” Dkt. 398).
As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Defendants specifically have objected. The Objections lack merit for the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation. The court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the Report and Recommendation. The court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the Objections.
The court further finds Defendants' assertions of bias or partiality on the part of Magistrate Judge Audero are not supported by the record and lack merit. While Defendants argue Magistrate Judge Audero should be disqualified pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 455 (“Section 455”), Dkt. 395 at 2, that section, on its face, concerns self-disqualification or recusal from a proceeding by a judge. Defendants do not cite any legal authority for the proposition that Section 455 provides a basis for a party to seek disqualification of a judge. Furthermore, Defendants' request for disqualification of Magistrate Judge Audero constitutes an improper request for affirmative relief that may not be brought through an objection to a Report and Recommendation, and which may be brought only through a noticed motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 144. Defendants' argument, thus, fails.
IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that:
(1) the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED;
(2) the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as detailed in the “Recommendation” section of the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 384 at 109-113); and
(3) Plaintiffs' request for additional monetary sanctions to reflect the attorney's fees incurred in responding to Defendants' Objections, Dkt. 398 at 12-17, is DENIED.