Opinion
1:24-cv-00255-NT
09-11-2024
MICHAEL ANTHONY NORTON, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AFFIRMING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nancy Torresen United States District Judge
On August 8, 2024, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court, with copies to the parties, her Recommended Decision (ECF No. 5). The Plaintiff filed a motion for relief (ECF No. 6) and an objection to the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 7). I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record, and I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations for the reasons set forth in her Recommended Decision, and I determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
It is therefore ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion for relief is DENIED, the Plaintiff's objection is OVERRULED, the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED, and the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
In addition, as the Magistrate Judge noted, the Plaintiff has filed three other cases in the District of Maine in recent years, and this Court previously issued a Cok warning, cautioning the Plaintiff that the Court might impose filing restrictions if he continued making groundless filings. See Norton v. Internal Revenue Serv., No. 1:23-cv-00206-NT, 2023 WL 3886805, at *1 (D. Me. June 8, 2023); see generally Norton v. Biden, No. 1:22-cv-00274-NT, 2022 WL 4585747 (D. Me. Sept. 29, 2022); Norton v. Univ. of Maine-Orono Physics Dep't, No. 1:20-cv-00030-NT, 2020 WL 2564672 (D. Me. May 19, 2020). The present action reflects the Plaintiff's latest baseless claim. Accordingly, I agree that filing restrictions are appropriate.
Cok v. Family Court of Rhode Island, 985 F.2d 32, 35 (1st Cir. 1993).
The Plaintiff is hereby ENJOINED from filing new cases in the District of Maine without obtaining the Court's prior permission by showing that his proposed pleading is sufficiently plain and definite to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 and to warrant a response.
SO ORDERED.