Preview:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE RANDALL B. HOFLAND, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD LAHAYE, et al., Defendants ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 1:09-cv-00172-JAW ) ) ) )

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO AMEND and MOTION TO RECUSE MAGISTRATE JUDGE Randall B. Hofland has filed two motions, the first one seeking the recusal of Chief Judge Woodcock and Magistrate Judge Kravchuk. (Mot. Recusal, Doc. No. 52.) The basis for the motion for recusal is that the "[t]he magistrate judge also made several egregious errors in dismissing the prior Amendment, in particular just plain ignoring case law on ,,joint-action." (Id. at 2.) The motion for recusal does not list any apparent reason for Chief Judge Woodcocks recusal, but one could infer that the recusal is sought because Chief Judge Woodcock affirmed my previous order denying Hoflands earlier motion to amend his complaint. (Doc. No. 40.) The statutory provision governing recusal of a magistrate judge is found at 28 U.S.C.

Download MJK_11042010_1-09cv172_Hofland_v_Lahaye.pdf

Maine Law