REARDON v. MONDELLI et al, No. 1:2015cv05520 - Document 69 (D.N.J. 2017)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER denying Plaintiff's 62 Motion for Recusal. Signed by Judge Noel L. Hillman on 4/25/2017. (TH, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
REARDON v. MONDELLI et al Doc. 69 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY JOHN E. REARDON, Plaintiff, v. 1:15-cv-05520-NLH-AMD MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER OFFICER MONDELLI, et al., Defendants. Appearances: JOHN E. REARDON 1 JOANS LANE BERLIN, NJ 08009 Appearing pro se DEAN R. WITTMAN MATTHEW B. WIELICZKO MICHAEL J. HUNTOWSKI ZELLER & WIELICZKO LLP 120 Haddontowne Court CHERRY HILL, NJ 08034 On behalf of the officer defendants BENJAMIN HENRY ZIEMAN STATE OF NEW JERSEY OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFETY 25 MARKET STREET P.O. BOX 116 TRENTON, NJ 08625 On behalf of the judicial defendants HILLMAN, District Judge This matter has come before the Court on Plaintiff’s motion for recusal [62]; and Plaintiff requests this Court’s recusal in this matter Dockets.Justia.com because the Court has deliberately denied his request for default judgment against the defendants; and On April 28, 2016 and October 5, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions for default judgment because he had not demonstrated that he had properly served the defendants or obtained a Clerk’s entry of default, see Docket No. 47, 60; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 55; and To date, Plaintiff has not established proper service of the defendants, and he has not obtained a Clerk’s entry of default as to any defendant, which precludes this Court from considering an application by Plaintiff for default judgment; and Under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a), “any justice, judge or magistrate [judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and this section requires judicial recusal “if a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would expect that the judge would have actual knowledge” of his interest or bias in a case, Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp., 486 U.S. 847, 860 (1988); In re Kensington Intern. Ltd., 368 F.3d 289, 301 (3d Cir. 2004); and The Court finding that Plaintiff’s basis for recusal has no merit; Therefore, 2 IT IS on this 25th day of April , 2017 ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for recusal [62] be, the same hereby is, DENIED. s/ Noel L. Hillman NOEL L. HILLMAN, U.S.D.J. At Camden, New Jersey 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
