Morris v. Bank Of America

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

MILDRED MCGHEE MORRIS THE ESTATE OF LESLIE L.F. MORRIS, SR., M.D.,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil No.: 1:24-cv-01949-JRR

BANK OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter comes before the court on Plaintiff Mildred McGhee Morris’ “Objection to Memorandum Opinion and Order and Request for Recusal.” (ECF No. 28; the “Motion.”) The court has reviewed all papers; no hearing is necessary. Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md. 2025). In the Motion, Plaintiff requests that this court reconsider its Memorandum Opinion and Order at ECF No. 26 and that the undersigned recuse herself from the instant matter. Plaintiff fails to set forth any change in controlling law or newly discovered evidence since the Memorandum Opinion at ECF No. 26. Plaintiff additionally fails to set forth any grounds to persuade this court that it made a clear error of law. See Jackson v. Sprint/United Mgmt. Co., 633 F. Supp. 3d 741, 745 (D. Md. 2022) (explaining that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) provides for amendment of a final order in only three circumstances: an intervening change in controlling law, new evidence, or a clear error of law or manifest injustice). Plaintiff additionally requests that the undersigned recuse herself from the instant matter “due to perceived bias and failure to consider critical facts and testimony.” (ECF No. 28 at p. 1.) Nothing in the Motion describes or identifies any basis of perceived or actual partiality, or demonstrates (or ably suggests) bias or that the undersigned is not a neutral judicial officer. While the court appreciates that Plaintiff is displeased by the Memorandum Opinion and Order at ECF No. 26, such displeasure is not grounds for recusal. Accordingly, it is this 29th day of September 2025: ORDERED that the Motion (ECF No. 28) shall be, and is hereby, DENIED.

Madam Clerk shall transmit a copy of this order to Plaintiff.

/S/

Julie R. Rubin United States District Judge