Chadda v. Badgett et al, No. 1:2014cv03459 - Document 43 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)

Court Description: ORDER adopting 40 Report and Recommendations, 25 Motion to Strike filed by Mike Anifantis, 8 Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction filed by Mike Anifantis, 24 Motion to Strike filed by Mike Anifantis, 41 Motion f or Recusal filed by Solanged D Chadda, 33 Motion to Strike filed by Solanged D Chadda, 31 Motion to Strike filed by Mike Anifantis, 42 Motion to Strike filed by Solanged D Chadda, 39 Motion to Strike filed by Mike Anifantis, 27 Moti on to Strike filed by Solanged D Chadda, 20 Motion to Strike filed by Mike Anifantis. As plaintiff is proceeding pro se, the Court will treat her motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Fox as an objection to the R&R. Further, it will exte nd her time within which to file that objection, nunc pro tunc, to and including the date of its receipt by the Court, which was January 12,2015. Accordingly, it will treat the motion on the merits. That, however, is the limit of the Court's solicitude. As an initial matter, plaintiff was obliged by the order of reference to make any motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Fox before him. She failed to do so. That in itself is sufficient reason to deny the motion and, treating it as an objection to the R&R, to overrule it. Even if the point were considered on its merits, there is nothing in the plaintiff's papers beyond innuendo (for which there appears to be no basis in fact) to suggest any basis for recusal. To start with the obvious, any legal errors that may have been committed are not a basis for disqualification, Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994), except to whatever extent the magistrate judge has misconstrued Section 455 and his or he r disqualification would have been required under the correct interpretation. But that is not the case here. As for the rest of it, plaintiff has alleged no facts that plausibly suggest that Magistrate Judge Fox had any relationship with any of the defendants, let alone that he was involved in personal and financial affairs with them. The relevance of speaking engagements, if Judge Fox had any, is entirely obscure. And notwithstanding the reference to some email, there is no email in the r ecord. In short, the objections are overruled and the motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Fox is denied. The motion of defendant Anfantis to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter and personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim on wh ich relief may be granted [DI 8] is granted on the latter two grounds. Plaintiff's deemed motion for leave to amend [DI 17] is denied. Treating the recently filed paper [DI 41] as a motion to disqualify Magistrate Judge Fox, that motion too is denied. All other unresolved motions are denied as moot. The Clerk shall enter final judgment and close the case. (Signed by Judge Lewis A. Kaplan on 1/13/2015) (mro)