Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 552 (1994).

In this case, Magistrate Judge Bobrick’s comments were based on what he saw and heard
from the bench. There is no suggestion that his comments were based upon extrajudicial
information or opinions, The comments do not, in any way, suggest or infer that Magistrate
Judge Bobrick would not act impartially on the actual matters submitted to him, namely
supervision of discovery and ruling on a motion for Rule 11 sanctions.

Moreover, the record in this case reveals that Magistrate Judge Bobrick has acted
impartially. He has ruled on over twenty document requests which were the subject of plaintiff's
third and fourth motion to compel. Those motions were granted in part and denied in part. Of
the over twenty rulings, plaintiff has sought fit to appeal only one ruling.

In sum, we find that no reasonable person could perceive a significant risk that Magistrate
Judge Bobrick will resolve this case on a basis other than the merits. We find that the ruling by
Magistrate Judge Bobrick denying plaintiff's motion for recusal was proper. Therefore,
plaintiff's objections to that order are denied.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we deny the plaintiff's objections to the August 22, 2002 order

of Magistrate Judge Bobrick denying plaintiff's motion for recusal. [89-1]

Le ce ~( KH
7 Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Judge

Dated: Qatbu 8,202



Misibe Order Form0g97

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Name of Assigned J Sitting Judge if Oth
enor Magistrate jets Wayne R. Andersen than Assigned Fudge
CASE NUMBER 1C 6181 DATE 10/8/2002
CASE Frank Marusiak vs. Adjustable Clamp Company
TITLE
[In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, ¢.g,, plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.]
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) o Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) o Brief in support of motion due
@) 0 Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due. :
(4) ag Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) Q Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for
(6) oO Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for .
(@) oO Trial[set for/re-set for] on at
(8) QO [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) a This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to)
OFRCP4(m) CO Local Rule 41.1 C)FRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
ao [Other docket entry) Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing
reasons, we deny the plaintiff's objections to the 8/22/2002 order of Magistrate Judge Bobrick
denying plaintiff's motion for recusal [89-1].
(11) «+f [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court,
No notices required.
Notices mailed by judge's staff.
Notified counsel by telephone. oc
aS | Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form. A aererae
«J aynaa aiereia’s aa
Z| Cony oidgsinagisrate judge obricl4. :
courtroom Shei eg ve Wadd
TSA deputy's
initials ;
Ch G + Dateltime received in
central Clerk's Office
t
o_o {ees arvana



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
FRANK MARUSIAK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
} Judge Wayne R. Andersen
Vv. )
) Case No. 01 C 6181
ADJUSTABLE CLAMP COMPANY, ) >.
) OG.
Defendant. ) 9 Ne >
%&,
Ca

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on the plaintiff's objections to Magistrate Judge Edward
Bobrick’s August 22, 2002 Order denying plaintiff's motion for recusal. For the following
reasons, the objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order are denied.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff bases his motion for recusal upon a colloquy which occurred during a July 31,
2002 hearing before Magistrate Judge Bobrick. At this hearing on plaintiff's fifth motion to
compel, Magistrate Judge Bobrick proceeded to give his opinions regarding defendant’s good
faith effort in attempting to make the invention. Magistrate Judge Bobrick expressed the opinion
that “it’s hard for me to believe that with that item that somebody can say Adjustable [the
defendant] didn’t put out a good effort on this case.” The Magistrate Judge also expressed his
opinion that the defendant’s clamp “was a pretty handsome good looking clamp, there was an

improvement-appeared to me to be an improvement on the [plaintiff's clamp].”



an

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff filed his motion for recusal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 and 455(a) seeking
recusal of Magistrate Judge Bobrick from further participation in these proceedings. Section 144
requires that: 1) a party file a timely and legally sufficient affidavit stating the facts and the
reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists; and 2) a certificate of counsel of record must
be filed stating that the affidavit is made in good faith.

In this case, the requirements of section 144 are not met. No affidavit from the plaintiff
has been filed. This alone is a fatal defect which precludes any recusal based on Section 144.
See Pomeroy v. Meritt Plaza Nursing Home, Inc., 760 F.2d 654, 658-59 (5" Cir. 1985). The only
affidavit filed in support of the motion is an attorney affidavit which contains conclusions and
opinions. Therefore, the requirements of Section 144 have not been met.

The motion for recusal is also based upon 28 U.S.C. 455 (a) which provides that “[a]ny
justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in
which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

In this case, we find that a reasonable person could not perceive a significant risk that
Magistate Judge Bobrick will resolve the case on a basis other than the merits. The Supreme
Court has held that:

[O]pinions formed by the judge on the basis of facts introduced or events

occurring in the course of the current proceedings, or of prior proceedings, do not

constitute a basis for a bias or partiality motion unless they display a deep seated

favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible. Thus,

judicial remarks during the course of a trial that are critical or disapproving of, or

even hostile to, counsel, the parties, or their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias

or partiality challenge. They may do so if they reveal an opinion that derives from

an extrajudicial source; and they will do so if they reveal such a high degree of
favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.