Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Holden v. Atos It Solutions and Services, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

May 26, 2017

O'DELL XAVIER HOLDEN Plaintiff,
v.
ATOS IT SOLUTIONS AND SERVICES, INC., et al., Defendants.

          Judge Timothy S. Black Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman

          DECISION AND ENTRY DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PENDING OBJECTIONS/MOTIONS (Docs. 115, 116, 117); AND ORDER TO CLERK TO REFUSE ANY FUTURE FILINGS BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE

          Timothy S. Black United States District Judge

         I. INTRODUCTION

         This civil case is before the Court regarding three filings made by Plaintiff on May 18, 2017: (1) Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order denying Plaintiff's motion for all stricken documents from the docket (Doc. 115); (2) Plaintiff's motion “requesting a substantive written order that substantiates the decision of Magistrate Bowman to dismiss Holden v. Atos for being frivolous and without merit” (Doc. 116); and (3) Plaintiff's motion to recuse (Doc. 117). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's objections (Doc. 115) and his two pending motions (Docs. 116, 117) are all DENIED; and the Clerk is ORDERED to refuse any future filing by Plaintiff in this case.

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate Judge's Order denying his motion for all stricken documents

         On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that he be given all of the documents that had previously been stricken from the case. (Doc. 112). The motion was once sentence long and consisted entirely of the following: “I O'Dell Holden am requesting all stricken docs [sic] from the docket of 1:14-cv-00914 by Judge Bowman for further case investigation.” (Id.). This motion was denied by the Magistrate Judge. In the Order denying the motion, the Magistrate Judge explained that the Court had denied a virtually identical motion filed May 24, 2016 (Doc. 104), and that Plaintiff's most recent motion contained no argument or authority to support his renewed request. (Doc. 113). As the Magistrate Judge's Order addresses non-dispositive matters, the Court will apply the “clearly erroneous” and “contrary to law” standards of review set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) when ruling on Plaintiff's objections.

         Plaintiff's objections argue that this motion is not identical to the May 24, 2016 motion because several documents have been filed since then and the current motion is therefore requesting documents that had not been previously requested. (Doc. 115, at 1). This statement is correct, but does not address the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that Plaintiff has offered no new credible argument as to why the Court should grant him access to documents that have been stricken from the record. Plaintiff's objections merely rehash the same baseless accusations of collusion between the Magistrate Judge and Defendant Atos IT Solutions and Services, Inc. (“Atos”) that have previously been addressed by the Court. (See Part II.B, infra). The fact that new documents have been requested does not, in itself, rectify the lack of substantive merit in the motion.

         Accordingly, Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's order denying his motion for all stricken documents are denied.

         B. “Motion for substantive written order”/motion to recuse

         The two most recently filed motions pending in this case are substantively similar, being based around Plaintiff's accusations impugning the character of both the Magistrate Judge and this Court. The first is titled as a motion “requesting a substantive written order that substantiates the decision of Magistrate Bowman to dismiss Holden v. Atos for being frivolous and without merit.” (Doc. 116). The second is a motion requesting that the magistrate judge recuse herself from the case (however, given that the motion requests that “the superior to Magistrate Bowman and Judge Black rule on this motion, ” the motion is interpreted as a request for this judge to recuse as well).

         Plaintiff alleges that the Magistrate Judge has acted unethically throughout the adjudication of this action to protect Defendant Atos. Plaintiff's motions contain several alleged examples of lies told by Atos during the discovery process and unethical actions taken by the Magistrate Judge to prevent Plaintiff from uncovering the truth behind those lies.

         This is not the first time Plaintiff has requested recusal in this case. On November 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a “motion for removal of Magistrate Judge Bowman from case 1:14-cv-914.” (Doc. 86). The Magistrate Judge issued an Order denying that motion om April 12, 2016. (Doc. 101). Plaintiff objected to this Order on April 28, 2016, raising substantively similar arguments to the arguments for recusal in Plaintiff's two motions currently pending before the Court. (Doc. 102). The Court denied Plaintiff's objections, finding that Plaintiff's accusations of bias on the part of the Magistrate Judge were based solely on a speculative allegation of “collusion” with absolutely no supporting evidence. (Doc. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.