Opinion
Case No. 12-11235
08-10-2012
PETER BORMUTH, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF JACKSON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S "MOTION TO RECUSE/DISQUALIFY"
Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, has now filed the fourth in a series of motions seeking the recusal or disqualification of the assigned judge. (Pl.'s Mot. Recuse/Disqualify, Dkt. # 3; Pl.'s Mot. Amend/Correct, Dkt. # 19; Pl.'s Mot. Alter, Dkt. # 30; Pl.'s 2d Mot. Recuse/Disqualify, Dkt. # 53; accord Letter from Pl., Dkt. # 20.) Plaintiff's previous motions were denied with detailed analysis. (See Order Den. Pl.'s Mot. Recuse, May 31, 2012, Dkt. # 14; Order Den. Pl.'s Mot. Amend/Correct, June 14, 2012, Dkt. # 23; Order Den. Pl.'s Mot. Alter, July 9, 2012, Dkt. # 39.) Plaintiff presents nothing new here, merely reference to routine orders recently entered. There is no substance to Plaintiff's motion, and no response, hearing, or further elaboration from the court is required. For the same reasons carefully explained in the court's earlier denials of essentially the same motion,
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's "Motion to Recuse/Disqualify" [Dkt. # 53] is DENIED.
_______________
ROBERT H. CLELAND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed to counsel of record on this date, August 10, 2012, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.
Lisa Wagner
Case Manager and Deputy Clerk
(313) 234-5522