IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
March 23, 2006
CHARLES ISELEY, PLAINTIFF,
ROBERT BITNER; JEFFREY BEARD; RICHARD ROE; JEFFREY JOE; B. L. LANE; FRANK GILLIS; R. E. JOHNSON; MEDON; D. MCMAHON; KENNETH KYLER; J. L. GRACE; R. M. LAWLER; RAYMOND COLLERAN; EDWARD BIESLAWSKI; PAUL DELROSSO; RONALD RICHARD; BOOTH; JOHN DOE; MICHAEL MOE; PETER POE; HARRIET HOE; WILLIAM STICKMAN; DAN DAVIS; SHARON DELETTO; MARK CAPOZZA; KENNETH MILLER; KENT WARMAN; F. BARNES; M. MAHLMEISTER; M. SMITH; D. DAY; B. MARTIN; C. HARRIS; MCCOMBIE; GUMBAREVIC; GUYTON; ESMOND; R. WORKMAN; B. WRIGHT; BLAKE; BRIAN HYDE; JOEL DICKSON; NEAL MECHLING; CAROL SCIRE; DAVID GOOD; DEBRA SAVERS; PAULA TEETER; FRANK NEDWIDEK; CHARLES SHANE; RONALD BLANDFORD; GARRY GALLUCCI; REBECCA KESSLER; SHELLEY MANKEY; AND MARLENE STEWART, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lisa Pupo Lenihan United States Magistrate Judge
Judge Alan N. Bloch / Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Doc. No. 137
On March 22, 2006 the Plaintiff filed a Third Motion for Recusal for both the District and Magistrate Judge assigned to this case. This Order will address only that portion requesting recusal of the Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that the Magistrate Judge "conspired" with the District Judge as well as with counsel for Defendant in denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. These allegations are denied in their entirety. As Plaintiff incorporates into this successive motion the allegations in his prior motions requesting recusal, so does this Court incorporate the reasons set forth in its prior orders denying the motions.
Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23rd day of March, 2006, that Plaintiff's Motion for Recusal of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 137) is DENIED.
In accordance with the Magistrate Judges Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), and Rule 72.1.3(B) of the Local Rules for Magistrate Judges, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this Order to file objections to this Order. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to file timely objections may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights.
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.