NO T RE CO MM EN DE D FO R FU LL -T EXTPU BL IC A TI ON Fi le N ame: 09a0283n .06 Fi led : A pr il 15, 2 009 05- 3995 UNITED STA

TES COURT OF A PPE A LS FO R TH E SI XTH C IR CU IT KEVI N M. GR EGG, Pl ain ti ff-A ppel lan t, v. SBC /AM ER ITECH , etal ., Defend ant s-Appe llees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APP EAL F RO M THE UN ITED ST AT ES DIST RICT COURT F O R THE SOU THER N DI STRIC T OF OH IO

Before: MERRITT , DAUGHTREY, and MOORE, Circuit Jud ges. PER C U R I A M

. Th e p l a i n t i ff, K e v i n G re g g , fi l e d n u me ro u s l a w s u i ts – now conso lidate d – against defend ant s S BC/Am eritech a nd SBC/A me ritech em ployees Mike Hay , Dan W il ey , Joel Hal l, and Tom Keen an. In t hose pro sefi l i ng s , Greg g rai s ed c l ai ms of rac ial di sc ri minat ion and re tal iat ion under T it le VII, 42 U .S.C . §§ 2000e -2000e- 17, under 42 U .S.C . § 1981, and under Ohi o R ev is ed C ode § 4112.02 ; c lai ms of breach of cont ra ct and breach of the duty of fair represent ati on unde r secti on 301 of the Labor Mana geme nt Relat ions Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1 85; claims of u npa id overtime an d retaliat ion in v iol ati on of secti on 207( a) (1 ) of the F air Labor Sta ndards Act , 29 U .S.C . § 207( a) (1 ); and a claim of

in ten tiona l inf liction of

emo tiona l distress und er Ohio sta te law. T he d istrict court e ve n t u a ll y g ra n t e d s u m m a ry ju d gm e n tt o t h e d e fe n d a n t s o n e a c h o f G re gg’ s su b s t a n t ive law cl aims ar is ing f ro m employ ment dec is ion s rendered, a nd v ar iou s a cti v it ies under tak en,05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 2 - d u r i n g G re g g ’ s t e n u re a s a t e l e p h o n e t e c h n i c i a n w i t h S B C /A me r i t e c h

. Th e p l a i n t i ff now app eals th at ruling, as w ell as num erou s proced ural ru li n gs m ade bythe district cou rt dur ing the pendency

of thi s l it ig ati on. The 25 iss ues setout by Greg g on appeal can be cat eg or iz ed into procedu ra l is sues c h a ll e n gi n g n u m e ro u s n o n -d is p o s it ive ru li n gs m a d e b y t h e d is t ri c tju d ge a n d su b s t a n t ive i s s ue s c ha l l en g i ng t he di s tr i c t c ou rt’ s g ran t of s um ma r y j ud g me nt

o n th e pl ai nt i ff’s c l ai ms ar is ing under

Tit le VII; 42 U .S.C . § 1981; anti -d is cr imi nati on prov is ion s i n Ohi o R ev is ed Cod e § 4 112.02; breac h of contractand of the duty -o f-fair-represent ati on prov is ion s o f 29 U.S.C. § 185 ; unp aid ov ertime and retaliat ion prov isions in 29 U.S.C. § 207 (a)(1); and Ohio tort law. Th e district court i s s u e d a 40-pa ge opinion add ressing the pa rties’ summ ary judgme nt motion s tha t recou nte d the facts pertinen t to the subst ant iv e issues no w before this cou rt and a pplied the relevant law to tho se facts. B ecau se the d istrict cou rt’s analysis is l arg ely co rrectand, cert ain ly , reache d the co rrectresul t w it h reg ard to the mer it s o f the is sues rais ed i n tha t c our t, a det ail ed recapi tul ati on of the n e ce ss a ry bac kg ro und infor mati on and of the leg al anal y si s to be employ ed in the reso lut ion of the is sues rais ed w oul d be larg ely

dupl ic ati v e and w oul d s er v e no useful or

precede nti al pu rp o se. See Greggv. SBC/Ameritech , N o s . 2 : 0 2 - C V - 9 8 0 , 2 : 0 2 - C V - 1 2 3 2 , 2 : 0 3 - C V - 6 3 6 , 2 0 0 5 WL 1514114 (S .D . O hio Ju ne 24, 2005)

. W e n ev erthel ess are at pai ns to ad dress one of the i ss ues ra is ed bel ow thatw as proper ly address ed by

the di str ict cour

t simpl y bec ause itrecei v ed s o much emphas is on05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 3 - appeal

. The pl ain ti ff

co ntends thatthe dis tr ict c our t’ s t re atment of his raci al dis cr imi nati on cl aim re g ardin g his ult imat e ter minat ion w as flaw ed. Spec ific all y , Greg g a rgu e s t hat a l t h o u g h h e w a s i n i t i a l l y d i s c i p l i n e d fo r

m a k i n g a n e xt ra o rd i n a r i lyhig h num b e r o f lon gdistan ce calls on com pan y cell p h o nes –in comp arison wi th ot her SBC/A me rictech tec hni ci ans – no ev ide nce of th e s e veri ty of dis ci pli ne meted out to s imi lar ly-s it uated e mp l o y e e s fo r

a b u s e o f local

cell-phon e priv ileges w as introd uced

. W e f ind no me rit to this arg ument. Fi rs t, becau se the a ll eg ati on of di sparate t re atmen t a m ong si mil ar ly-s it uated em p lo ye e s i s a n elem entof the pla intif

f ’s prim a facie ca se, i t was Greg g , not SBC/A me ritech, who bore th e bu rden of und ert a k in g tha t ana ly sis. Secon d, th e record makes cl ear t h a t th e l a ck of suc h ev ide nce w as les s a functi on of the failu re to offer av ail abl e proof than i t was an i mposs ibi li ty

. The si mple fa ctis t hat n o oth er empl oy ee under the direct ion of Greg g ’s su per v is or had co m p iled a c omparabl e record of unautho ri z ed di v ersi ons from wor k a cti v ity , abu se of company pol icy reg ardin g ce ll -p hone usag e, an d mi sus e of cus tomer tel ephone eq uip ment. Un d e r these c ircums tanc es, the absen ce of ev ide nce re g arding a n y di sc ipl ine i mposed on ot her empl oy ees for unautho ri z ed l ocal ca ll s made on c ompany ce ll phones does n o t cal l int o q uest ion the district court’s sum ma ry judgmen t ruling, si mp ly beca use n o oth er em ploye e w as in fact sim ila rly sit u a te d to Gre gg.05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 4 - Moreover, to the exten t tha t Gregg ’s argume nt can be construe d to assert thathis ter minat ion for mak ing l ocal ca ll s o n c ompany ti me and c ompany

equi pment w as improper beca use h e w as no t on no tice of the im prop rietyof

such usa ge, thatargume n ti s also w it hout meri t. In his depos it ion , G re g g tes ti fied th at, after his su spens ion for mak ing personal l ong -d is tanc e phone ca ll s o n company ce ll phones , hi s s uper v is or , Thomas Keenan, ex pla ine d: Personal cal ls are not suppo sed to be made an d i t’ s c onsi dered a Cod e of Con ductv iol ati on and tec h ex pect ati ons, and then he turns r ig ht around an d says but w e [S BC /Amer it ech manag ement] understa nd th at t here are ti mes y o u a re g o i n g t o n e e d t o ma k e pe rs o n a l ca l l s an d i f yo u h a v e t o c a l l y o u r w i fe and tell her y ou a re going to be late, whatever, y o u k n o w, you can make some p ersonal ca ll s, basi cal ly not to ab use it , or

so methi ng to that effect

. Cl e a rly, per mis si on to i nform famil y members o f unanti ci pated, wor k- re lat ed del ay s was not ta nt am ou nt to bl an k et pe r mi s s i on to us e c om pa ny eq ui pm en t for an y pu r pose. Just as clearly, Kee nan ’s a dm onitio n extende d to bo th loca l and lon g- distan ce ph one calls, so that Greg g ca nnot now l eg it imat ely

as ser t t hat h e tho ug ht t hat t here w as no rest ri cti on on loc al cel l- phone u sag e for personal ca ll s. C onseq uentl y , t he “ 118 non -b usi ness rela ted tel ephone cal ls ” that the p laint iff made on a company ce ll phone after

hi s t en- day sus pensi on for maki ng unaut hor iz ed lon g -d is tanc e cal ls more tha n j ust ify the act ion tak en b y SBC /A m e rit e ch aga in stGre gg.05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 5 - Ha vin g fo u n d t h a tt h e su b s t a n t ive is s u e s ra is e d o n a p p e a l d o n o tm e ri tre li e f , we now direct our atte ntion to the n u m e ro u s p roced ural aspe cts of this litig ation thatare chal len g ed by

the pla int iff. District Court’s Refusal to Enforce A rbitration Agreem ent Greg g first ins is ts that the d is tr ict c our t er re d i n an order

ente re d on Dec ember

18, 200 3, th at failed to ma nda te enforcem ent of an alleged arbitratio n award in the plaintif f ’s fav or . As ex pla ined b y the di str ict j udg e i n hi s s ummary j udg ment opi nio n, foll ow ing SBC/A me ritech’s suspe nsion and then termin ation of the plaint if f , Gregg av ailed h imse lf of the g ri e vance procedu re prov ide d for in the c oll ect iv e barg ain ing ag re ement be tw een the co mpany

and his uni on, t he C ommunic ati on W or kers o f Ameri ca. Pu rs uant to t hat proce ss , G re g g first submi tted to an i nformal “ neutral ev alu ati on proces s” w hereby an ev alu ator

q uest ion ed bot h par

tie s to t he di sput e and re ndered an “a dv is or y opi nio n.” Beca use the c ompany ch ose to reje ct th e e valu a tor’ s o pin ion , howev er , t he c ase w as

“ d e fe r re d t o t h e re g u l a r a r b i t ra t i o n p ro c e s s , ” o f w h i c h G re g g n e v e r a v ail ed hi ms e l f. Con seq uentl y , no tr ue “ ar bit ra ti on award” has y et i ss ued, and t he di str ict c our t t hus did not er r in re fusing to enforc e a n on- ex is tent aw ard. On ap peal , G re g g co ntends that the “adv is or y opini on” w as nev er

proper ly reje cte d by SBC /Amer it ech becau se the a g re ement be tw een th e company and uni on c all ed for written n o t if ic a t io n o f

a p a rt y’s re f u s a l t o a b id e b y t h e t e rm s o f t h e o p in io n wit h in two w or ki ng day s of i ts is suanc e. Al thoug h SBC /Amer it ech g av e onl y an or al rej ect ion of

the05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 6 - adv is or y opi nio n w it hin the appropr iat e two- day per iod , bot h the co mpany and the union ag re ed, e v en before Greg g ’s case w as heard, that suc h non-w ri tten noti ficat ion “w oul d be suffici ent

. T h i s h a s b e e n t h e p ra ct i c e . T h e re fo re , t h e fa c tt h a tt h e re i s n o s u c h w r i tten docu me nt is not m ean ingfu l.” Di st rictC ou rt ’s A lleg ed Den ial of Add it io nal D isco v ery After the Eq ual Employ ment Oppor tuni ty Commis si on (EEO C)iss ued Greg g a l etter g ra nti ng hi m the ri g ht t o s ue SB C/ Amer it ech for fail ing to re instat e hi m to h is pos it ion as sug g est ed bythe neutral ev alu ator ’s “ adv is or y opi nio n,” Greg g fil ed an amended c omplai nt cont ain ing the same cl aim inv olv ed in the EEOC proceed ing and a mo ti o n reques ti ng addi ti onal ti me for di sc ov er y . Spec ific all y , t he pl ain ti ff req uest ed “ti me to re cei v e and rev iew any of th e EEOC evidentiary sub mission s, v ia the [Freedo m Of Informa tion Act ], so he c an be abl e to make a better informed deci si on as to w hether or not to po ss ibl y

i ncl ude his Inte rnatio nal un ion or Lo cal as Defend ant s.” Tha tm o t io n wa s den ied by the district cour t, and G re g g now

al leg es er ro r in that ru li ng . W e rev iew

a di str ict c our

t’ s d eci si on l imi ti ng di sc ov er y for a n abus e of di sc re ti on. See Gett ings v . Bldg. Labor

er s L ocal 310 Fr ing e Bene fits Fund , 349 F.3d 30 0, 30 4 (6th Cir. 200 3). Beca use the am end ed co mp laint trigg ering the request for add itiona l discov eryin thi s matter

i nv olv ed th e pl ain ti ff ’s as ser ti on th at t he te rms of an adv is or y opi nio n s houl d be enforced , and beca use Gregg had f iled a com plaint cont aining just such an allegation six05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 7 - mo nt hs p rev i ou s l y , he a l rea dy h ad e nj oy ed s uffi c i en t ac c es s t o th e ne c es s ar y d i s c overy infor mati on. The di str ict c our t t hus did not abuse i ts dis creti on i n deny ing the moti on. Den ial of

M ot io ns to St rike Pl ain ti ff Greg g next as ser

ts that the d is tr ict c our

t er re d i n fail ing to str ik e aff ida v it s of fered byDiana Bot talla, an em ployee-relation s m ana ger at SBC/A me ritech, an d Rona ld W ell s, the v ic e- presi dent of labor rela ti ons for SBC /Amer it ech. The pla int iff c ontends that Bot talla’s af

f idavit was imp rope rly consid ered by the court be cause the informa tion th erein w as not l imi ted t o empl oy ees w ho w ere s imi lar lys it u ated to t he pl ain ti ff

. Fur ther more, Gregg main tains th at W ells’s nam e w as not provided to him by the defend ant s in a timely fashio n an d, th us, th e af f idavit aut hore d by tha t individual shou ld nothave prov ided a basis for the district co urt’s su mm aryju dgme nt ruling. Again, the d istrict jud ge d id notabu se his consid erab le discretion in makin g the se evidentia ry rulings. Fi rs t, Bott alla ’s affidav itmerely att ached a di sc ipl ine repor t s he “ cons ult ed w hen d is c u s s in g t h e p ro p e r d is c ip li n e t o b e gi ve n t o K e vin M. G re gg fo r m is u s e o f h is co m p a n yis sued cel lul ar

tel ephone w it h hi s mana g er , Tom Keen an.” The aff ida v itand attac hments do not pur por

t, how ev er , to re ferenc e dis ci pli ne onl y of s imi lar ly-s it uated employ ees, but rathe r seek to provide a f rame w ork for all discipline impose d “in SBC’s Midw est R egion in 2001 for mis use of the C ompany ce ll ula r tel ephones .” There w as no er ro r in re fusing to str ik e s uch back g ro und i nformati on empl oyed b y t he c ompany i n det er mini ng the appropr iat e di sc ipl ine to be i mposed.05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 8 - Seco nd, W ell s’ s a ff ida v it , ev en i f untimel y , was merel y cu m u lat iv e of other infor mati on already before the c our t. In the a ff ida v it , t he v ic e- presi dent of labor rela ti ons sta ted t hat SBC /Amer it ech had ti mely reje cte d the adv is or

y opi nio n i ss ued by

the neutral ev alu ator

pursuantto the col lecti v e barg ain ing agreement betw een the company and the uni on. The cour

t already had before i t, how ev er , t he J une 5, 2003, l etter from t he uni on to Gregg clearlyex pressing the u nion ’s recognition tha t the com pan y rejecte d the advisory opi nio n. Any

er ro r in thi s reg ard, therefore, did not affect the ult imat e det er minat ion of the dis tr ict j udg e. Den ial of

M ot io n fo r L eave t o A men d and A lleg ed Gran t of M ot io n to St rike Gre gg als o in sis ts th a t t h e d ist ric t c o u rtsh o u ld ha ve a llo wed hi m to am e n d hi s f ili n gs to pro vide ad d it io n a l a u th e n ti ca ti o n fo r e xhib it s o f fe re d

. I n fa ct , h o wever, th e di st ric t ju d ge r ul ed t ha t th e c ou rt “ s ha l l c onsider p ro pe r e v i de nc e to w hi c h i t i s d i recte d i n s om e dis cer nib le manner ,” ev en thoug h the defendants mov ed “ to s tr ik e al l of the ex hib it s t hat Gre g g h a s a t t a c h e d t o h i s m e mo ra n d u m i n o p p o s i t i o n ‘ b e c a u s e n o n e o f t h e d o c u me n ts have bee n au the n t ic ate d or certif ied acco rding to the requirem ent s of Rules 901 (b)(7), 902( 4) , and 44( a) of [the] Federal Ru les of Ev ide nce. ’” The defendants’ m oti on th us w as notg rante d by the court, a nd Gregg has suf fered n o harm f rom the ref usal of his req uest to prov ide addi ti onal auth enti cat ion

. Den ial of

R equ estfor

C ou rt -A pp oi nt ed Co un sel05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 9 - Greg g co ntends thatthe dis tr ict c our t furt her er re d i n refusing hi s req uestfor c ourtappoi nted couns el. W e rev iew su ch a deni al for abus e of di sc re ti on. See Lava do v. Keohane , 992 F. 2d 601, 605 ( 6th C ir . 199 3)

. Beca use thi s i s a ci v il ca se, the pla int iff has no c onst it uti onal r ig ht t o have co u n sel appoi nted. See Shepher d v . Well m an , 313 F .3d 963, 970 ( 6th C ir . 200 2) ; Lavado , 992 F .2d a t 605

. Indeed, onl y i n ex cept ion al ci rc umstan ces w il l the pr iv il eg e of c our t- appoi nted couns el be jus ti fied in a ci v il cas e. See Lavado , 992 F .2d a t 606

. As w e not ed i n Lavado : I n d e t e rm in in g wh e t h e r “ e xc e p t io n a l c ir c u m s t a n c e s ” e xis t , co u rt s h a ve ex amined “ th e t y pe of cas e and the a bil it ies of the p lai nti ff to re present hims elf.” Thi s g enera lly i nv olv es a det er minat ion of the “ compl ex ity of the factual and leg al is sues i nv olv ed.” Ap poi ntment of co u n se l

. . . i s n ot appropr iat e w hen a pro se lit ig ant’ s cl aims are f ri v olo us, or w hen the c hance s of s uc c es s a re extrem el y s l i m. Id. (citations om itted and paragraph forma tting altered ). As clearlynote d in the district court’s deci s io n s i n the substa ntive aspect s of this li ti g ati on, G re g g ’s prospects for suc ces s on hi s c lai ms of di sc ri minat ion , retal iat ion , l abor law v iolation s, and transgressions of st ate la w

were n ot good. Co nseque ntly, the district judge did no t abu se his discretion in denying the plaint if f ’s request for app ointe d cou nsel. Denial of Motion for Verifica tion Ni ne month s p ri or

to fili ng his m oti on for summar y j udg ment, Greg g fil ed w it h the dis tr ict c our

t a document

sty led “ moti on for v er ific ati on.” I n that moti on, he as ser ted t hat05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 10 - th re e pa ges of

SB C/Am e rit e ch ’s Ass e t Pro te ct io n Re p o rt were n o t pro vide d to th e ju d ge for rev iew

pr ior to the c our

t’ s r uli ng on redact ion of cer tai n el ements of the e v ide nce. The plaint if f now argues tha t den ial of thatmot ion con stitute d an abu s e o f t h e d ist rict court’s discretion in this mat ter. As the district court ruled, h owev er: P la in t if f ’s co n c e rn t h a ta fa il u re b y De fe n d a n tS B C/A m e ri t e c h t o h a ve proper ly di sc los ed al l of the As setProtecti on R epor t w il l re sul t i n an ina bil ity to prov e hi s c lai ms reflect [s] a premature attemptat cont ro v erti ng D efendant SBC /Amer it ech’ s e v ide nce. I f Plai nti ff i s c or re ct and he in deed po ss ess es re cords that cont ain mater ial di fferent from t h a t w hic h D efendant SBC/A me ritech represe nts to be a com plete record of the sam e ma terial, the n h e c a n a t t a c k thatev iden ce at trial using his records. He can also atte mp t at trial to imp each w itnesse s base d on t h e a lleged discrepa ncies. Furthe r, should Defend antSBC/Am eritech rely upo n incom plete ma terial in mov ing for s ummary

j udg ment, Pl ain ti ff

ca n s ubmit his copi es of the mater ial in oppos it ion to that moti on. In ot her words, the ti me for i mpeachmentor to create an i ss ue of fact i s n ot y et r ipe

. This resol uti on of the pla int iff’s c hal len g e i s cer tai nly reaso nabl e and does not a mount t o an abus e of the dis tr ict j udg e’s di sc re ti on. Denial of Motion to A mend Claim for Spoliation Acc ordin g to the dis tr ict cour t’ s ow n “i ncompl ete count ,” pl ain ti ff Greg g had filed “ at le a s tt e n m o t io n s fo r l e a ve t o f il e a n a m e n d e d co m p la in t , a n o ri gi n a l c o m p la in t , a n d f ive am end ed co mp laints” in just one of the con solidat ed ca ses in this litig ation . Ev ent u a ll y, therefore, the cour

t ordered th at “ Pl ain ti ff sh all fil e an amended c omplai nt, w hic h mu st inc lud e all cl aims he s eeks to ass ert, by Aug ust20, 2004.” G re g g di d fil e j ustsu ch an05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 11 - amended c omplai nt on Aug ust19, 2004, alt houg h he “l ater so ug ht t o amend that fili ng by add ing docum ent s thathe asse rted he forgot to att ach to his plead ing.” Th e district court per mitt ed th e l imi ted a mendment, but t he pl ain ti ff then mov ed – after the A ug ust20 deadl ine – t o amend his pl eadi ng s b y addi ng y et an addi ti onal cl aim all eg ing sp oli ati on of ev ide nce by

the defendants. G re g g now ch all eng es the d is tr ict j udg e’s deni al of that addi ti onal moti on to amend. Pursuantto the p ro v is ion s o f Rul e 15( a) of the Fe d e ra l Ru les of Ci v il Procedu re , lea v e to amend “ shal l be freel y g iv en w hen j ust ic e so re q uires. ” “ Nev erthel ess , t he par ty re q uest ing lea v e to amend mus t act w it h due dil ig ence if i t wants to tak e adv antag e of the Rule’s liberality.” Parry v. Moh aw k Motors of Mich., Inc. , 236 F .3d 2 99, 3 06 ( 6th C ir . 200 0) (c it ati on and int er nal q uotat ion mar ks omi tted)

. In thi s c ase, the dis tr ict c our t not ed th at “[ t] h e record i s repl ete w it h ev ide nce of Plai nti ff ’s bad faith.” I ndeed, the d is tr ict j udge ex pla ine d tha t G re g g admi tted he “ knew of much o f the pur por

ted b asi s for

thi s c lai m at lea st as far bac k a s A pr il 9, 2004,” but that he sti ll faile d “t o inc lud e or to attempt to i ncl ude thi s c lai m in the three amended co mplai nts he subs eq uentl y filed ” or “ to c omply

w it h the Court’s specif ic directiv e to asse rt all his claim s in his last permitt ed p lead ing.” Unde r such ci rc umstan ces , t he di str ict j udg e d id not abuse hi s d is creti on i n deny ing the moti on to amend hi s c omplai nt. See id. (“ W e generall y rev iew a di str ict c our

t’ s d eni al of a moti on to am end a com plaintfor abu se of discretion. ”). Imposition of Sanctions05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 12 - Des pit e a war nin g from t he di str ict c our t t hat a ny

fu rt h e r re d u ndant fili ng s b y the pla int iff woul d re sul t in sancti ons, Greg g cont inu ed to paper the cour t w it h moti ons ra is ing iss u e s a n d o bje ct io n s th a t h a d p re viou sly b e e n l o d ged

. C o n se que n tl y, th e di st ric t ju d ge det ermin ed th at “Plaint if f has ab used the pro cess an d ha s unn ecessa rily delayed the se proce edin gs” and impo sed a $20 0 f ine on Gregg . Th e prop riet y o f s u c h a sanctio n is re v iewed bythis courtonly for an abuse of

di sc re ti on. See Di

xon v. Clem , 492 F .3d 6 65, 6 7 1 ( 6 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 )

. G i v e n t h e fa c tt h a tt h e d i s t r i c tj u d g e “ re p e a t e d l y w a r n e d ” t h e p l a i n t i ff abo ut th e ne ed to cease his redun dan t f ilings, his det ermin ation “that Plain tif f ’s tactics only ser v e to harass oppos ing co unsel and unnec ess ar il y compl ic ate thi s Cou rt ’s dock et,” and his co ncl usi on th at t he “ Pl ain ti ff has abus ed th e pro ce ss a n d .

. . unnec ess ar il y del ay ed the se proce edin gs,” the d istrict jud ge d id notabu se his discretion in sanction ing Greg g in this ma tter. Mo ti on for

R ecus al Greg g al so chal len g es an order of the d is tr ict c o u rtd e ny ing the pla int iff’s mot ion filed pursuantto 2 8 U .S.C . §§ 144, 455( a) , and 455( b) (1 ) ask ing the dis tr ict j udg e to dis q ual ify hims elf due to all eg ed bia s. In that order , t he di str ict c our t c arefull y

address ed each of the pla intif

f ’s allegations of

judicial bias, ap plied th e r e le va n tla w , and correctly conc lud ed “ that Pl ain ti ff has present ed i nsuffici ent g ro unds w ar ra nti ng the dis q ual ific ati on of the .

. . j udg e pursuantto 28 U .S.C . § 144” a n d that “ [t] here are al so no g ro unds for05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 13 - disqualif ication und er 28 U.S.C. § 455 .” For the reason s ade quately detailed in the district cour t’ s o rd er , w e c oncl ude t hat t his i ss ue i s a ls o w it hout meri t. CO NC LU SION For the re asons se t outabov e, we AF FI RM the jud g ment of the dis tr ict c our t.05-3995

Gregg v. SBC/Ameritech

- 14 - KA REN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge, concurri ng in the j udgment. I co ncur in thi s c our

t’ s j udg ment.