SCOTT
v.
BLANTON
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Pro se plaintiff Eddie Scott moved to recuse Magistrate Judge Lammens, arguing the judge violated his constitutional rights and citing disagreement with prior judicial rulings. The court denied the motion, holding that disagreement with legal conclusions and prior adverse rulings do not provide a factual basis for recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a).
The court held that recusal is not warranted where a party bases the motion on speculation and subjective disagreement with the court's legal conclusions rather than facts evidencing impartiality. Disagreement with legal conclusions and prior adverse rulings alone do not satisfy the objective standard for recusal under § 455(a).
[1] Disagreement with a judge's legal conclusions or prior rulings does not, in itself, constitute a basis for recusal.
[2] Recusal under 28 U.S.C. …
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“whether an objective, disinterested lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality”
Establishes the objective standard for judicial recusal under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEddie Scott, a pro se plaintiff, filed a motion to recuse Magistrate Judge Philip R. Lammens in a case against Crystal Blanton and the City of Ocala. …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion For Recusal cases and more on FLexlaw
This matter is before the Court upon referral of pro se Plaintiff Eddie Scott's motion to recuse the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 6). Plaintiff argues that the undersigned should be recused because Plaintiff disagrees with decisions made in this case and a prior case involving Plaintiff, and because “Judge Lammens didn't allow me to exercise my constitutional rights." (Doc. 6 at 1). A review of Plaintiff's motion reflects that the alleged basis for recusal is Plaintiff's disagreement with the undersigned's judicial rulings.
The standard for recusal under 28 U.S.C § 455(a) is an objective one, requiring a court to ask "whether an objective, disinterested lay observer fully informed of the facts underlying the grounds on which recusal was sought would entertain a significant doubt about the judge's impartiality." Bolin v. Story, 225 F. 3d 1234, 1239 (11th Cir. 2000). To satisfy the requirements of § 455(a) a party must offer facts, not merely allegations, that evidence partiality. See United States v. Cerceda, 188 F. 3d 1291, 1292 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[a] charge of partiality must be supported by some factual basis ... recusal cannot be based on ‘unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation"). A party should not be permitted to recuse a judge on
unsupported, irrational or highly tenuous speculation. United States v. Greenough, 782 F. 2d 1556, 1558 (11th Cir. 1986.) “[I]f this occurred the price of maintaining the purity of the appearance of justice would be the power of litigants or third parties to exercise a veto over the assignment of judges." Id.
Plaintiff's motion is based upon speculation and his subjective disagreement with the Court's legal conclusions, rather than upon any facts that evidence impartiality by the undersigned. Disagreement with the Court's legal conclusions is not a basis for recusal, nor is the fact that the undersigned previously entered a report and recommendation in a prior case recommending that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed. Notably, Plaintiff offers no other basis for his assertion that the undersigned is biased or prejudiced against him other than prior rulings.
Therefore, because Plaintiff's motion fails to state sufficient grounds for recusal, Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that any reasonable individual could entertain significant doubt about the impartiality of the undersigned. See 28 U.S.C § 455(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion for recusal (Doc. 6) is DENIED.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on March 11, 2025.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
- 2 -
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Bolin v. Story, 225 F.3d 1234 (11th Cir. 2000)
- United States v. Cerceda, 188 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 1999)