Eric D. Gant v. World Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE ERIC D. GANT, ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) No. 2:26-cv-00270-SDN ) WORLD BANK, ) ) Defendant ) RECOMMENDED DECISION AFTER PRELIMINARY REVIEW Because I granted Eric D. Gant’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, see ECF No. 4, his complaint (ECF No. 1) is before me for preliminary review, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In his pro se complaint, Gant—who calls himself “King Eric the 1st”—invokes the Michigan Constitution and accuses “the World Bank” of violating “the King’s law,” namely “section 39 of the Euphoria Doctrine.” Complaint at 1-3. Given the obvious frivolity of Gant’s delusional complaint, I recommend that the Court DISMISS his case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) (“[T]he court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action . . . is frivolous . . . .”); Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992) (“[A] court may dismiss a claim as factually frivolous only if the facts alleged are clearly baseless, a category encompassing allegations that are fanciful, fantastic, and delusional. As those words suggest, a finding of factual frivolousness is appropriate when the facts alleged rise to the level of irrational or wholly incredible, whether or not there are judicially noticeable facts available to contradict them.” (cleaned up)).

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: May 28, 2026 /s/ Karen Frink Wolf United States Magistrate Judge