Opinion ID: 770978
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Predetermination of the Summary Judgment Motion

Text: 9 Szymanski's first contention on appeal is that the district court predetermined that a ruling would be given in favor of Defendant-Appellee, even prior [to] the motion for summary judgment being filed. Szymanski bases this argument on statements made by the court to the defense during the July 16, 1999 conference. At that conference, the defendant had sought permission to file a summary judgment motion in which it would claim that under the recent Supreme Court decisions requiring that courts factor in the use of any mitigating device in the determination as to whether an individual is considered disabled under the ADA, Szymanski would not be considered disabled. The court disagreed, stating that while it was not prejudging the case, it believed that if there is a successful motion for summary judgment pending, it's one that goes to the basic facts of this case and is outside the recent rulings by the Supreme Court. In addition, the court noted that though it did not know how such a motion would work out, it believed that a motion for summary judgment based on the issue of whether Szymanski had been employed was a more realistic approach. 10 We need not use much ink to dispose of this claim. We find that plaintiff's failure to address this issue below (during the four and one half months between the time of the conference and the decision granting summary judgment), either by seeking a recusal because of bias under 28 U.S.C. sec. 144, or moving to disqualify under 28 U.S.C. sec. 455, has resulted in waiver. See In re Muller, 851 F.2d 916, 918-19 (7th Cir. 1988) (failure of a party to raise objection to remarks made by the district court during a preliminary hearing, until after an unfavorable ruling was rendered, results in waiver). 1