Norton v. Adams et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
BRUCE R. NORTON,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOSEPH ADAMS, et al.,
Defendants.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:25-CV-01216
Judge Jennifer P. Wilson
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is the report and recommendation of United States
Magistrate Martin C. Carlson recommending that the court grant Defendants’
motions to dismiss, deny Plaintiff’s second motion for preliminary injunction, and
dismiss Plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice. (Doc. 58.) In making these
recommendations, Judge Carlson carefully analyzes whether Plaintiff’s claims fall
within any of the three narrowly construed statutory exceptions to the Anti-
Injunction Act. (Id. at 8–20.) The report and recommendation concludes that the
exceptions do not apply to Plaintiff’s claims and recommends granting
Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (Id.) Because Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the
Anti-Injunction Act, he cannot fulfill the requirements to obtain a preliminary
injunction, thus, it is also recommended that the second motion for preliminary
injunction be denied. (Id. at 20–22.)
Case 1:25-cv-01216-JPW Document 62 Filed 03/17/26 Page 1 of 3

2
Plaintiff filed objections to the report and recommendation arguing that a
categorical dismissal of his claims under the Anti-Injunction Act is inappropriate,
that declaratory relief remains an available remedy, that judicial immunity is
inapplicable, and that leave to amend should be granted. (Doc. 59.) Defendants
Matthew D. Menges and York County Court of Common Pleas opposed Plaintiff’s
objections, asserting that he is rearguing his points and is simply displeased with
the outcome of the report and recommendation. (Doc. 60.) In Plaintiff’s reply
brief, he argues that he has narrowed his claims to avoid the Anti-Injunction Act
and that judicial immunity does not bar declaratory relief here. (Doc. 61.)
When a party raises only general objections to a report and recommendation,
a district court is not required to conduct a de novo review of the report and
recommendation. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6–7 (3d Cir. 1984). “To obtain de
novo determination of a magistrate’s findings by a district court, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) requires both timely and specific objections to the report.” Id. at 6.
Thus, when reviewing general objections to a report and recommendation, the
court’s review is limited “to ascertaining whether there is ‘clear error’ or ‘manifest
injustice’” on the face of the record. Boomer v. Lewis, No. 3:06-CV-00850, 2009
WL 2900778, at *1 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 9, 2009).
The court has reviewed Judge Carlson’s report and recommendation and
finds no clear error or manifest injustice on the face of the record. The objections
Case 1:25-cv-01216-JPW Document 62 Filed 03/17/26 Page 2 of 3

3
simply disagree with the conclusions in the report and recommendation and
reargue the points previously made by Plaintiff. Judge Carlson carefully analyzed
the very issues now complained of by Plaintiff, and Plaintiff has not specifically
objected to any aspect of Judge Carlson’s analysis. Accordingly, the court will
adopt the report and recommendation, Doc. 58, overrule Plaintiff’s objections,
Docs. 59, grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss, Docs. 33, 39, 43, deny Plaintiff’s
second motion for preliminary injunction, Doc. 32, dismiss Plaintiff’s amended
complaint with prejudice, Doc. 28, deny Plaintiff’s motion to file a sur-reply as
moot, Doc. 57, and close this case. An appropriate order will follow.
s/Jennifer P. Wilson
JENNIFER P. WILSON
United States District Judge
Middle District of Pennsylvania
Dated: March 17, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-01216-JPW Document 62 Filed 03/17/26 Page 3 of 3