Robinson v. Saylor et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 4:25-cv-02092-MWB Document6~ Filed 03/03/26 Page 1of4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MICHAEL ROBINSON, : No. 4:25-CV-2092
Plaintiff : (Brann, C.J.)
Vv. : (Caraballo, M.J.)

JUDGE ROBERT B. SAYLOR,
et al.,

Defendants
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On November 5, 2025, Plaintiff Michael Robinson,! proceeding pro
se, commenced this action against 11 individuals and entities. Doc. 1.

The complaint seemingly takes umbrage with the outcome of a local

1 Robinson initiated at least 13 cases in the Middle District of Pennsylvania since
the year 2017. The 138 cases include: (1) Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty.
Children & Youth Servs., No. 17-CV-1321; (2) Robinson v. Millbrand, No. 17-CV-
1322; (8) Robinson v. Leschinski, No. 17-CV-1416; (4) Robinson v. Northumberland
Cnty., No. 18-CV-989; (5) Robinson v. Northumberland Cnty. Jail, No. 21-CV-1905;
(6) Robinson v. City of Shamokin, PA, No. 22-CV-45; (7) Robinson v.
Northumberland Cnty., No. 23-CV-1044; (8) Robinson v. City of Shamokin, 25-CV-
1134; (9) Robinson v. Slaby, 25-CV-2091; (10) Robinson v. Saylor, 25-CV-2092; (11)
Robinson v. Saylor, 20-CV-2098; (12) Robinson v. Montgomery Cnty., 25-CV-2217;
and (13) Robinson v. Sample New Grp., LLC, 25-CV-2306. Three of the 13 cases are
currently assigned to the undersigned: (1) Robinson v. Slaby, 25-CV-2091; (2)
Robinson v. Saylor, 25-CV-2092; (8) Robinson v. Saylor, 20-CV-2093. Of the
remaining ten, seven were dismissed at the screening stage: (1) Robinson v.
Northumberland Cnty. Children & Youth Servus., No. 17-CV-1321; (2) Robinson v.
Millbrand, No. 17-CV-1822; (8) Robinson v. Leschinski, No. 17-CV-1416; (4)
Robinson v. City of Shamokin, PA, No. 22-CV-45; (5) Robinson v. Northumberland
Cnty., No. 23-CV-1044; (6) Robinson v. Montgomery Cnty., 25-CV-2217; and (7)
Robinson v. Sample New Grp., LLC, 25-CV-2306.

Case 4:25-cv-02092-MWB Document6~ Filed 03/03/26 Page 2 of 4

election held in Shamokin, Pennsylvania, on November 4, 2025. See id.
at 2 (“VIOD [sic] NOV. 4 RESULTS”). Robinson simultaneously applied
for and was granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, Docs. 2; 5, with
the complaint’s service held in abeyance pending the Court’s screening
obligations. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (requiring sua sponte
dismissal if action is “(i) frivolous or malicious; (11) fails to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief.”). Robinson also filed a
motion for a temporary restraining order, requesting that the election
be voided. Doc. 3.

On the same date that he commenced this action, Robinson filed
two other actions against the same group of individuals and entities,
based on similar premises. See Nos. 4:25-CV-2091 at Doc. 1 at 3 (M.D.
Pa. 2025) “VOID NOV. 4 2025 SHAMOKIN ELECTION RESULTS’);
4:25-CV-20938 at Doc. 1 at 2 (M.D. Pa. 2025) “VOID NOV 4.
SHAMOKIN ELECTION RESULTS”). Subsequently, on January 8,
2026, Robinson moved to consolidate the three actions into the action

No. 25-CV-2091. No. 4:25-CV-2091 at Doc. 6. In action No. 25-CV-2091,

Case 4:25-cv-02092-MWB Document6~ Filed 03/03/26 Page 3 of 4

Robinson filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) that
is substantially similar to the motion filed in this action. Doc. 3.

As the motion to consolidate in No. 4:25-CV-2091 is being granted
in conjunction with this Report and Recommendation, the undersigned
recommends that this action be closed, accordingly. Further, as the
pending motion for a temporary restraining order in this action and the
consolidated suit are essentially the same, the undersigned
recommends that the pending motion for a temporary restraining order
in this action be denied without prejudice.

Accordingly, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that:

1. The motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) be

DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

2. The Clerk’s Office be DIRECTED to TERMINATE all

pending defendants in this action, and CLOSE this action.

Robinson is also placed on notice that, pursuant to Local Rule
72.3:

Any party may object to a magistrate judge’s proposed

findings, recommendations or report addressing a motion or

matter described in 28 U.S.C. § 686 (b)(1)(B) or making a

recommendation for the disposition of a prisoner case or a

habeas corpus petition within fourteen (14) days after being
served with a copy thereof. Such party shall file with the clerk

Case 4:25-cv-02092-MWB Document6~ Filed 03/03/26 Page 4 of 4

of court, and serve on the magistrate judge and all parties,
written objections which shall specifically identify the
portions of the proposed findings, recommendations or report
to which objection is made and the basis for such objections.
The briefing requirements set forth in Local Rule 72.2 shall
apply. A judge shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made and may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge,
however, need conduct a new hearing only in his or her
discretion or where required by law, and may consider the
record developed before the magistrate judge, making his or
her own determination on the basis of that record. The judge
may also receive further evidence, recall witnesses or
recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with
instructions.

M.D. Pa. L. R. 72.3. Failure to file timely objections to the foregoing
R&R may constitute a waiver of any appellate rights. See Nara v.

Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (8d Cir. 2007).

Date: March 3, 2026 S/ Phillip J. Caraballo
Phillip J. Caraballo
United States Magistrate Judge