Matches in SCALES for { <http://schemas.scales-okn.org/rdf/scales#/DocketEntry/ilnd;;1:04-cv-03285_de18> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 4 of
4
with 100 items per page.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-03285_de18 RegisterActionDate "2004-07-30" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-03285_de18 RegisterActionDescriptionText "MINUTE ORDER of 7/30/04 by Hon. Charles R. Norgle Sr : On 07/30/2004, plaintiff filed a motion, styled motion for recusal of Judge Norgle. In essence, plaintiff argues that recusal is proper because the Court granted defendants an extension of time to file a motion to dismiss and also set a briefing schedule for the motion to dismiss, allowing plaintiff approximately one month to respond to that motion. A motion to recuse may be brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 144, 455 or the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. See generally Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff cites no statute or case law in support of the present motion. Therefore, the court deems this argument waived. See United States v. F1B5945 224 F.3d 621, 626 (7th Cir. 2000) (noting that an under developed argument speaks to its paucity, and refusing to consider the argument); United States v. Lanzotti, 205 F.3d 951, 957 (7th Cir. 2000) ("It is not [the] court's responsibility to research and construct the parties' arguments."). Further, plaintiff provides no valid argument to support recusal. The law is clear that "judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion." Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Plaintiff's motion for recusal of Judge Norgle is denied [15-1]. Sua sponte. Counsel of record for defendants; Paul W. Groah, John A. Ouska, Thomas A. Ioppolo, Alison Irene Abel and Lee Ann Richey; need not appear on 08/06/2004 for presentment of the instant motion. Mailed notice (jmp) (Entered: 08/04/2004)" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-03285_de18 AdministrativeID "16" @default.
- ilnd;;1:04-cv-03285_de18 OntologyLabel order @default.