IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
David Meyers, )
) C/A No. 3:23-cv-00460-DCC-KFM1
Plaintiff, )
) ORDER
vs. )
)
United States of America, )
)
Defendant. )
)
This matter is before the court on a motion for recusal filed by the plaintiff
(doc. 5). On September 14, 2023, the Fourth Circuit designated the Honorable Donald C.
Coggins, Jr., United States District Judge for the District of South Carolina, to hold court in
the Western District of North Carolina for all proceedings in the instant matter (doc. 7).
During this same time, the Honorable Martin Reidinger, Chief United States District Judge
for the Western District of North Carolina, entered an order designating the Honorable
Kevin F. McDonald, United States Magistrate Judge, to hold court and perform any and all
judicial duties designated under 28 U.S.C. § 636 for all pretrial proceedings in the instant
matter (doc. 8). As such, this magistrate judge is authorized to review all pretrial matters
in this case and submit findings and recommendations to the district court.
On August 14, 2023, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking recusal of all of the
United States District Judges and United States Magistrate Judges for the Western District
of North Carolina (hereinafter, collectively, “WDNC Judges”) based upon disagreement with
rulings made in his prior cases (doc. 5). In the motion, the plaintiff asserts that all of the
WDNC Judges are committing hate crimes on the plaintiff, conspiring to have him
assassinated, and protecting the “white supremacist white racist buddies” against whom the
plaintiff has sought relief by dismissing the plaintiff’s cases (id. at 1–3, 10–12). The
1 The case number has been updated based upon the reassignment of this matter.
The parties are directed to update any future filings in this case accordingly.
plaintiff’s motion then goes on to set out the allegations he seeks to bring against the
defendant in front of a different judge (id. at 3–9).
Generally, dissatisfaction with a court’s rulings does not entitle the plaintiff to
recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (“Judicial rulings alone
almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion”). Moreover, based on
the reassignment of the instant matter on September 14, 2023, to the undersigned and
Judge Coggins, the plaintiff’s motion seeking recusal of the WDNC Judges (doc. 5) is
denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Kevin F. McDonald
United States Magistrate Judge
October 5, 2023
Greenville, South Carolina
2
Not legal advice. These patterns come from public court records, not ratings of judges as people. They may reflect the types of cases a judge handles, local procedures or other factors, and they do not account for the facts of any individual case. Past patterns do not predict future rulings. Records can be incomplete, months behind current activity, or matched to the wrong person; sealed and confidential cases are not included. Use this as one piece of information, never the sole basis for legal strategy or a recusal motion. Full disclaimer: https://judgefinder.io/legal/disclaimer Read the full disclaimer.