Miller v. Miller et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
COURTNEY MILLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC MILLER, et al.,
Defendants.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:25-CV-1454
(SAPORITO, J.)
(BLOOM, C.M.J.)
ORDER
AND NOW, this 10th day of March, 2026, in accordance with the
accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT
1. 	The report and recommendation of Judge Bloom (Doc. 43) is
ADOPTED 	as 	supplemented 	and 	modified 	by 	the 	accompanying
Memorandum;
2. 	The court will decline to exercise jurisdiction of the plaintiff ’s
procedural due process claims under the
Younger abstention doctrine,
and, as such, these claims are DISMISSED pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6);
3. 	The plaintiff ’s remaining claims are DISMISSED for failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii); and
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 1 of 2

- 2 -
4. 	The plaintiff ’s motions for TRO and related motions (Doc. 2;
Doc. 21; Doc. 36; Doc. 38) are DENIED.
5. 	The plaintiff ’s motion for leave to appeal
in forma pauperis
(Doc. 44) is DENIED as moot, as the plaintiff has been previously granted
in forma pauperis status.
See (Doc. 26).
6. 	The Clerk shall close this case.
Dated: March 10, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-01454-JFS Document 47 Filed 03/10/26 Page 2 of 2