Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+)

M.D. Alabama

Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+)

DecidedApril 28, 2022

Docket2:21-cv-00493

StatusUnknown

This text of Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+) (Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+), (M.D. Ala. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

VELINA M. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-493-WKW-SRW ) [WO] INLAND RESIDENTIAL REAL ) ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the court are Plaintiff’s objection to the order referring this case to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. # 27.) Also before the court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion to recuse. (Doc. # 17.) The motion to recuse is construed liberally as containing a request for recusal or disqualification of the assigned judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. First, Plaintiff objects to the referral of her case to the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits a district judge to refer pretrial matters or dispositive matters for recommendations, and the referral does not require the plaintiff’s consent. The objection to the referral lacks merit. Second, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or submitted an affidavit demonstrating that the magistrate judge or the district judge assigned to her case harbors a “personal bias or prejudice” against her. 28 U.S.C. § 144. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that “a reasonable person knowing

all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” as required to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 455. Hepperle v. Johnston, 590 F.2d 609, 615 (5th Cir. 1979).1

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the order referring this case to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (Doc. # 27) is OVERRULED and that Plaintiff’s motion to recuse (Doc. # 17) is DENIED.

DONE this 28th day of April, 2022. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION

VELINA M. JOHNSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CASE NO. 2:21-CV-493-WKW-SRW ) [WO] INLAND RESIDENTIAL REAL ) ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the court are Plaintiff’s objection to the order referring this case to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636. (Doc. # 27.) Also before the court is Plaintiff’s pro se motion to recuse. (Doc. # 17.) The motion to recuse is construed liberally as containing a request for recusal or disqualification of the assigned judges pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455. First, Plaintiff objects to the referral of her case to the magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) permits a district judge to refer pretrial matters or dispositive matters for recommendations, and the referral does not require the plaintiff’s consent. The objection to the referral lacks merit. Second, Plaintiff has not alleged any facts or submitted an affidavit demonstrating that the magistrate judge or the district judge assigned to her case harbors a “personal bias or prejudice” against her. 28 U.S.C. § 144. Third, Plaintiff has not shown that “a reasonable person knowing

all the facts would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” as required to satisfy 28 U.S.C. § 455. Hepperle v. Johnston, 590 F.2d 609, 615 (5th Cir. 1979).1

For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s objection to the order referring this case to the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636 (Doc. # 27) is OVERRULED and that Plaintiff’s motion to recuse (Doc. # 17) is DENIED.

DONE this 28th day of April, 2022. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 In Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Johnson v. Inland Residential Real Estate Services, LLC (MAG+), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-inland-residential-real-estate-services-llc-mag-almd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack