Middleton v. United States Department of Labor

District of Columbia

Middleton v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia·Decided July 10, 2018·No. Civil Action No. 2017-0878·Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EVELYN L. MIDDLETON, pro se, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:17-cv-00878 (TNM)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Defendant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the pleadings, relevant law, and related legal memoranda in opposition and in support, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the following pre-filing restrictions are implemented: Ms. Middleton is not permitted to file any actions in the District Court for the District of Columbia related to the above-captioned matter (i.e,. her retirement account or the handling of her complaints about the account by any individual, the Department of Labor, or the United States), without pre- authorization from a judge in this District upon a finding that the case could be meritorious rather than repetitive. If Ms. Middleton wishes to file a related action, she shall submit to the Clerk of

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

EVELYN L. MIDDLETON, pro se, Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 1:17-cv-00878 (TNM)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR,

Defendant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the pleadings, relevant law, and related legal memoranda in opposition and in support, for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as moot. It is further ORDERED that the following pre-filing restrictions are implemented: Ms. Middleton is not permitted to file any actions in the District Court for the District of Columbia related to the above-captioned matter (i.e,. her retirement account or the handling of her complaints about the account by any individual, the Department of Labor, or the United States), without pre- authorization from a judge in this District upon a finding that the case could be meritorious rather than repetitive. If Ms. Middleton wishes to file a related action, she shall submit to the Clerk of

Middleton v. United States Department of Labor, (D.D.C. 2018).

Pincite

Middleton v. United States Department of Labor (Middleton v. United States Department of Labor) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.