Opinion
No. 607, 2001.
Decided: March 18, 2002.
Court Below — Superior Court of the State of Delaware, in and for Kent County C.A. No. 01C-10-017.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, BERGER and STEELE, Justices.
Affirmed.
Unpublished opinion is below.
JERRY LEE ALSTON, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. THE HONORABLE WILLIAM WITHAM, Defendant Below-Appellee. No. 607, 2001 In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: January 18, 2002 Decided: March 18, 2002
ORDER
This 18th day of March 2002, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellee's motion to affirm pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), it appears to the Court that:
(1) The plaintiff-appellant, Jerry Lee Alston, filed this appeal from the Superior Court's November 2, 2001 order dismissing his complaint as legally frivolous. Defendant-appellee, the Honorable William Witham, has moved to affirm the judgment of the Superior Court on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Mr. Alston's opening brief that the appeal is without merit. We agree and AFFIRM.
SUPR. CT. R. 25(a).
(3) On October 10, 2001, Mr. Alston filed a pro se civil complaint in the Superior Court. The complaint names the Honorable William Witham, a Superior Court judge, as the defendant. The complaint seeks the recusal of Judge Witham from other Superior Court litigation in which Mr. Alston is involved on the basis of Judge Witham's alleged "personal bias."
(4) On November 2, 2001, the Superior Court dismissed the complaint as legally frivolous because it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The Superior Court correctly dismissed Mr. Alston's complaint.
SUPER. CT. CIV. R. 12(b) (6).
Because the claims made by Mr. Alston against Judge Witham arise out of the performance of Judge Witham's official duties, he enjoys absolute immunity with respect to all such claims.
DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 10, § 4001 (1999).
(5) It is manifest on the face of Mr. Alston's opening brief that this appeal is without merit because the issues presented on appeal are controlled by settled Delaware law and, to the extent that judicial discretion is implicated, clearly there was no abuse of discretion.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 25(a), Judge Witham's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED.