LARRY

v.

O'CONNER

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Recuse a Judge, Dkt. 5, in which Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, seeks the undersigned’s removal from this case. For reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s motion is denied. Relevant to the instant matter, 28 U.S.C. § 455 governs recusal. Pursuant to § 455(a), a judge “shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” The standard for determining recusal under this section is “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.” United States v. Patti, 337 F. 3d 1317, 1321 (11th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1149 (2004). A party seeking recusal under this section must offer facts supporting recusal. United States v. Cerceda, 188 F. 3d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1999). Relatedly,

under § 455(b), recusal is mandatory in certain circumstances that show the fact of partiality. Patti, 337 F. 3d at 1321. Here, Plaintiff seeks recusal because he “feels there will be some sort of conflict of interest.” Dkt. 5. Plaintiff’s two-sentence motion does not elaborate on this supposed conflict of interest, nor does it include any facts that would support recusal. Because the present motion fails to show the fact of partiality or otherwise demonstrate that any objective individual would entertain a significant doubt as to the undersigned’s impartiality, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on August 12, 2022.

/s/ William F. Jung

WILLIAM F. JUNG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record Plaintiff, pro se