JOHNSON v. WATERVILLE HEALTH & WELFARE

Filing 4

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW re 1 Complaint. Objections to R&R due by 9/12/2024. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE KAREN FRINK WOLF. (CSA)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
ROBERT W. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff
v.
WATERVILLE HEALTH
& WELFARE,
Defendant

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 1:24-cv-00303-NT

RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW
Because I granted Robert W. Johnson’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis, see Order (ECF No. 3), his complaint is now before me for preliminary
review. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (providing that when a party proceeds in forma
pauperis, a court must “dismiss the case at any time if” it determines that the action
“is frivolous or malicious[,] . . . fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted,”
or “seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief”).
Johnson purports to bring a federal civil rights claim against Waterville Health
& Welfare, but he neglects to describe what the Defendant did or failed to do that
violated his rights and caused him damages. See Complaint (ECF No. 1) at 4 (stating
that “Johnson was discriminated against for benefits due to his race, sex, education,
financial status, retaliation and disability”). Because Johnson’s complaint lacks “the
crucial detail of who, what, when, where, and how” necessary to provide fair notice of
what the claims are and the grounds upon which they rest, Byrne v. Maryland, No.
1:20-cv-00036-GZS, 2020 WL 1317731, at *5 (D. Me. Mar. 20, 2020) (rec. dec.), aff’d,
1

2020 WL 2202441 (D. Me. May 6, 2020), it fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
Accordingly, I recommend that the Court DISMISS Johnson’s complaint.
Further, because I am contemporaneously recommending the Court dismiss
another of Johnson’s actions on the basis of improper venue, see Johnson v. Reid, No.
2:24-cv-00301-NT (D. Me. Aug. 29, 2024) (rec. dec.), this Court dismissed a previous
action of Johnson’s as frivolous, see Johnson v. Trump, et al., No. 1:23-cv-00331-NT,
2023 WL 5627313 (D. Me. Aug. 31, 2023) (rec. dec.), aff’d, 2023 WL 6845137 (D. Me.
Oct. 17, 2023), and he appears from a PACER search to be a serial litigator in federal
courts, I also recommend the Court WARN Johnson that further groundless filings
may result in the imposition of filing restrictions limiting his ability to bring new
matters in this Court, see Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34-35 (1st Cir. 1993).
The Clerk’s Office is requested to send copies of this recommended decision to
Johnson at the address listed on his complaint in this case as well as the address
listed on his more recent complaint in Johnson v. Reid, No. 2:24-cv-00301-NT.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a Magistrate
Judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the District
Court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days after being served with a copy thereof. A responsive memorandum
shall be filed within fourteen (14) days after the filing of the objection.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the District Court and to appeal the District Court’s
order.
Dated: August 29, 2024

/s/ Karen Frink Wolf
United States Magistrate Judge
2