Opinion
2:09-cv-2295-RLH-RJJ.
May 25, 2010
ORDER
Before the Court is an Order (#12) entered by the Honorable Robert J. Johnston, regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of Magistrate Judge (#9), and Motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Johnston's Order (#11).
Plaintiff mistakenly calls this Order 11. Document #11 is his motion for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Order #10. The Judge's Order is document #12.
Plaintiff filed an Appeal to Judge Johnston's Order (#12) in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and this matter was referred for consideration.
The delay in addressing Plaintiff's second Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, and this matter going forward is due to Plaintiff's motions to recuse the Magistrate Judge, not to any bias or prejudice on the part of Judge Johnston. Bias or prejudice on his part has not been shown. The fact that Plaintiff does not like, or disagrees with, Judge Johnston's rulings is not evidence that he is prejudiced against Chanley.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Order of Magistrate Judge 12 is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be affirmed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED Plaintiff's Appeal of Magistrate Judge's Order of April 8, 2010, denying Reconsideration of Order 12 is without merit and that Magistrate Judge `s Order (#12, incorrectly called Order 11 by Plaintiff) is AFFIRMED.