Bernath v. Seavey

Filing 301

ORDER re 300 Supplement filed by Daniel A. Bernath, 299 Response filed by Daniel A. Bernath. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reject any future filing in this case that is not identified as a "Notice of Appeal." In the event of a rejected filing, the Clerk must make a notation on the docket containing the date of the attempted filing and indicating that the filing was rejected pursuant to this Order. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 12/20/2017. (LMF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
DANIEL A. BERNATH,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No: 2:15-cv-358-FtM-38CM

MARK CAMERON SEAVEY,
Defendant.
/
ORDER1
This matter comes before the Court on pro se Plaintiff Daniel A. Bernath’s
Opposition

to

Suppression

Pre-Publication

“100

Years

of

Treason,

Sexual

Predators/Child Molesting, Donation Thefts and Betrayal by the American Legion” (Doc.
299) and Supplement to Opposition Magistrate Recommendation (Doc. 300). A careful
review of both filings show that they offer nothing more than the same rants and raves
that Bernath has launched against Defendants American Legion and Mark Seavey since
he filed this case two years ago. The Court, once again, has liberally considered his
allegations and found them to be meritless.
At this stage, the Court will not accept future filings in this case because the
undersigned has dismissed Bernath’s claims and entered judgment. It has also declared
Bernath to be a vexatious litigant. The Court’s scarce judicial resources cannot be further

1

Disclaimer: Documents filed in CM/ECF may contain hyperlinks to other documents or websites. These
hyperlinks are provided only for users’ convenience. Users are cautioned that hyperlinked documents in
CM/ECF are subject to PACER fees. By allowing hyperlinks to other websites, this Court does not endorse,
recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their
websites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their websites. The
Court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a
hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the Court.

expended on this closed case. The Court, therefore, WARNS Bernath that it will not
accept any future filings in this case that are not identified as a “Notice of Appeal.”
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to reject any future filing in this case that is not
identified as a “Notice of Appeal.” In the event of a rejected filing, the Clerk must make a
notation on the docket containing the date of the attempted filing and indicating that the
filing was rejected pursuant to this Order.
DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida this 19th day of December 2017.

Copies: All Parties of Record

2