ELISENS v. MAINE STATE FORENSICS DHHS et al

Filing 15

ORDER ACEEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE accepting 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDED DECISION re 12 MOTION to Remove Licensed/Badged/Robed Tyrants and Prevent them from Obtaining Positions of Authority Elsewhere; denying 12 Motion to Remove Licensed/Badged/Robed Tyrants and Prevent them from Obtaining Positions of Authority Elsewhere By JUDGE JON D. LEVY. (clp)

Case 1:22-cv-00387-JDL Document 15 Filed 05/22/23 Page 1 of 2

PageID #: 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BRENT ELISENS,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
MAINE STATE FORENSICS
DHHS, et al.,
Defendants.

1:22-cv-00387-JDL

ORDER ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Brent Elisens, proceeding pro se, initiated this action against Maine
State Forensics (Department of Health and Human Services), two Maine State
Forensics employees, and his former state court-appointed attorney on December 7,
2022 (ECF No. 1). On December 9, 2022, Elisens filed an Amended Complaint (ECF
No. 5). Elisens alleged that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights and
defamed him in connection with an ongoing state court criminal proceeding. United
States Magistrate Judge John C. Nivison screened the Amended Complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915(e)(2) (West 2022) and issued a Recommended Decision (ECF
No. 7). The Court accepted the Recommended Decision and dismissed Elisens’s
Amended Complaint on March 1, 2023 (ECF No. 10).
Elisens

subsequently

filed

an

unsigned

“Motion

to

Remove

Licensed/Badged/Robed Tyrants and Prevent them from Obtaining Positions of
Authority Elsewhere” (ECF No. 12) on March 27, 2023.

Judge Nivison filed a

Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13) on April 11, 2023, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A.
1

Case 1:22-cv-00387-JDL Document 15 Filed 05/22/23 Page 2 of 2

PageID #: 62

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2022) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Judge Nivison construed the
motion as a request from relief from judgment pursuant to Rule 60 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and recommends that the Court deny the motion because
Elisens has not asserted facts that demonstrate that he is entitled to relief under
Rule 60. 1 Judge Nivison provided notice that a party’s failure to object would waive
the right to de novo review and appeal. Elisens filed an Objection (ECF No. 14) on
April 27, 2023.
I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision and Elisens’s
Objection, together with the entire record, and have made a de novo determination of
all matters adjudicated by the Magistrate Judge. I concur with the recommendation
of the Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in his Recommended Decision and
determine that no further proceeding is necessary.
It is ORDERED that the Recommended Decision (ECF No. 13) of the
Magistrate Judge is hereby ACCEPTED and Elisens’s motion (ECF No. 12) is
DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 22nd day of May 2023.
/s/ Jon D. Levy
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

To the extent that Elisens’s motion might be construed as also seeking the recusal of Judges Levy
and Nivison from this case, Judge Nivison concluded that Elisens failed to present any factual or legal
basis to warrant his recusal in this matter. I similarly conclude that there is no basis for my recusal.
1

2