IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE RICKY THOMPSON-EL, ) Plaintiff, ) V. C.A. No. 18-1426-RGA GREATER DOVER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, ) Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiff Ricky Thompson-E] filed this employment discrimination case on September 13, 2018. (D.I. 1). On November 27, 2018, | dismissed the Complaint. 6, 7). In part, | dismissed individual Defendants Chris Basher, Robin Roberts, and Trish Moses. On April 25, 2019, | denied Plaintiffs request to reinstate the dismissed defendants. (D.I.11). On February 17, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for my recusal/petition to move. (D.I. 78). | now decide that motion. Plaintiff moves for my recusal under

. Pursuant to

(a), a judge is required to recuse himself “in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”

(a). The test for recusal under § 455(a) is whether a “reasonable person, with knowledge of all the facts, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” In re Kensington Int’! Ltd.,

, 301 (3d Cir. 2004). The movant does not have to show that the “judge actually harbors bias against a party.” United States v. Kennedy,

(3d

Cir. 2012). Under § 455(b)(1), a judge is required to recuse himself “[w]here he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party.” Under either subsection, the bias necessary to require recusal generally “must stem from a source outside of the official proceedings.” Liteky v. United States,

(1994): Selkridge v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co.,

(3d Cir. 2004) (beliefs or opinions which merit recusal must involve an extrajudicial factor). Hence, “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis for a bias or partiality motion.” Liteky,

. It is evident in reading Plaintiffs motion that he takes exception to this Court's dismissal of the three individual defendants. A reasonable, well-informed observer could not believe that my rulings were based on impartiality, bias, or actual prejudice. After careful and deliberate consideration, | conclude that | have no actual bias or prejudice towards Plaintiff and that a reasonable, well-informed observer would not question my impartiality. In light of the foregoing standard, and after considering Plaintiffs assertions, | conclude that there are no grounds for my recusal under

. For the above reasons, the Court will deny the motion for recusal/petition to move. (D.I. 78). An appropriate order will be entered. Y fd b day UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE June 24, 2022 Wilmington, Delaware