Randel Edward Page, Jr. v. Apperson Crump, PLC, and United States Trustee, Region 8

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee denies Randel Edward Page, Jr.’s objection and appeal concerning a magistrate judge’s extension of the briefing deadline. The court also denies motions for recusal and disqualification of opposing counsel and denies as moot a motion to stay the briefing schedule, while warning Page that sanctions may result from submitting nonexistent or misrepresentative case citations.

Holdings

1. A district judge reviews a magistrate judge's order resolving a non-dispositive, pretrial matter for clear error or whether it is contrary to law.
2. A legally insufficient recusal affidavit does not require referral to another judge or halt proceedings; the challenged magistrate judge may continue to act.
3. A judge's participation in a bar association with opposing counsel and court personnel, without evidence of personal bias, does not establish a conflict requiring recusal.
4. A district judge may refer non-dispositive, pretrial matters to a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and applicable local rules without requiring party consent.
5. Page could not obtain disqualification of opposing counsel because he did not show a past attorney-client relationship with the attorney, and he presented no concurrent conflict of interest under Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.
6. The motion to stay the briefing schedule was denied as moot after the court denied the motions for recusal and disqualification on which the requested stay depended.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 72.1 to grant an extension of time as a non-dispositive, pretrial matter without the parties' consent.
2. Whether Page's recusal challenge required the magistrate judge to halt proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 144.
3. Whether participation by the magistrate judge, opposing counsel, and the clerk in the same bar association, together with the alleged proposed order, established personal bias requiring recusal.
4. Whether the district judge's referral was merely administrative and therefore insufficient to confer authority on the magistrate judge.
5. Whether opposing counsel should be disqualified under the Sixth Circuit's attorney-disqualification test or Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7.
6. Whether Page's motion to stay the briefing schedule should be granted pending resolution of the recusal and disqualification motions.

Disposition

other