Debtor sought to recuse the Judge assigned to his case under 28 U.S.C. §§144, 455(a), the due process clauses and the equal protection clause of the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. As grounds, Debtor’s complaints generally fell into four categories: (i) dissatisfaction with the amount of notice provided or the way notice was provided; (ii) dissatisfaction with the outcome of a hearing on restoration of water service; (iii) dissatisfaction with the Court’s orders in the adversary proceeding; and (iv) dissatisfaction with the Court’s orders in the Main Case and a separate adversary proceeding. The Court determined recusal was not warranted because Debtor received adequate notice under Rule 9006; the court’s actions during the hearing on restoration of water service were within normal judicial functions; and despite Debtor’s subjective disagreement with the orders, they would not lead an objective observer to doubt the judge’s impartiality. 
NOT FOR PUBLICATION