PER CURIAM
This case was last before us in Norton v. Adams, C.A. No. 25-2361, 2025 WL 2231797 (3d Cir. Aug. 1, 2025) (per curiam) ("Norton I"), where we affirmed an order refusing to enjoin a sheriff's sale of appellant Bruce Norton's property in York County, Pennsylvania. Background facts from that opinion are incorporated here by reference. In short, Norton filed this pro se civil rights action after a string of losses in state foreclosure proceedings, see Deutsche Bank [ ] v. Norton, 350 A.3d 135 (table), 2025 WL 2838434, at *1 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2025); Deutsche Bank [ ] v. Norton, 276 A.3d 235 (table), 2022 WL 730594, at *5 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2022)—results he attributes to "systematic practices that deny entire categories of constitutional protections," and to discrimination
"based solely on his status as a pro se litigant." App. Vol. II at 14, 18. Norton's amended complaint raised claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. For relief, he requested a declaration that the foreclosure proceedings were constitutionally infirm. He also sought injunctive relief, to include federal court oversight of, and defendants' compliance with the law in, "all future judicial proceedings" in state court. App. Vol. II at 18.1 The District Court dismissed Norton's case with prejudice, over his objections, after adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report recommending (1) granting the defendants' motions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), and (2) denying Norton's latest motion for a preliminary injunction. Still pro se, Norton timely filed this appeal.
2
We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Our review is de novo. See Reading v. N. Hanover Twp., N.J., 124 F.4th 189, 195 (3d Cir. 2024) (legal conclusions supporting denial of preliminary injunction); United States ex rel. Bookwalter v. UPMC,
946 F.3d 162, 168 (3d Cir. 2019) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal); U.S. ex rel. Schumann v. Astrazeneca Pharms. L.P., 769 F.3d 837, 849 (3d Cir. 2014) (amendment futility). We have considered Norton's arguments on appeal—none demonstrates reversible error.2His motion for a preliminary injunction was rightly denied, and his amended complaint rightly dismissed with prejudice, for substantially the reasons given in the Magistrate Judge's Report and anticipated in Norton I. See 2025 WL 2231797, at *3 (discussing, e.g., immunity, cognizability, preclusion, and plausibility issues with Norton's claims). Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court will be affirmed. The motion of certain appellees for leave to file a supplemental appendix is denied.
3