Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 187 views

    Stankunas v. Statkus Et Al - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, recommending that it be denied without prejudice to refiling after plaintiff has made service on the defendants. Follow up on Objections to R&R on 3/13/2006. Signed by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jab, ) 1:2006cv00044 New Hampshire District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Stankunas v. Statkus Et Al - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    187 views3 pages
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, recommending that it be denied without prejudice to refiling after plaintiff has made service on the defendants. Follow up on Objections to R&R on 3/13/2006. Signed by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jab, ) 1:2006cv00044 New Hampshire District Court

    Original Title

    Stankunas v. Statkus et al - Document No. 5

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, recommending that it be denied without prejudice to refiling after plaintiff has made service on the defendants. Follow up on Objections to R&R on 3/13/2006. Signed by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jab, ) 1:2006cv00044 New Hampshire District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    187 views3 pages

    Stankunas v. Statkus Et Al - Document No. 5

    Uploaded by

    Justia.com
    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, recommending that it be denied without prejudice to refiling after plaintiff has made service on the defendants. Follow up on Objections to R&R on 3/13/2006. Signed by Judge James R. Muirhead. (jab, ) 1:2006cv00044 New Hampshire District Court

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    Stankunas v. Statkus et al Doc.

    5
    Case 1:06-cv-00044-SM Document 5 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 1 of 3

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE


    DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

    Raymond Stankunas

    v. Civil No. 06-cv-044-SM

    Joseph Statkus, et al.

    REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

    Plaintiff was a Commissioner of the Emerald Lake Village

    District Board of Commissioners. The Village District is a

    municipal entity in the Town of Hillsborough, New Hampshire.1

    The Annual District Meeting was held on Friday, January 20, 2006

    and, pursuant to the Warrant, elections were held for two

    Commissioners, the Moderator, the Clerk and the Treasurer.

    Plaintiff sought re-election as a Commissioner. Since he

    complains that he was denied a recount I infer that he was not

    determined to have won election on January 20, 2006.

    Plaintiff alleges that he applied pursuant to N.H. RSA

    669:30 for a recount within the statutory period, but that no

    recount was held within the required 5-10 days after his

    application. He further alleges that the newly elected

    1
    N.H. RSA 52:1 permits the establishment of such districts
    within a town.

    Dockets.Justia.com
    Case 1:06-cv-00044-SM Document 5 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 2 of 3

    Moderator, Franklin P. Sylvia, announced at a February 3, 2006

    public meeting of the Commission that “there would be no recount,

    plaintiff could not win a recount.” Document no. 1, Complaint,

    p.4, ¶ 6.

    Plaintiff now moves for an ex parte Temporary Restraining

    Order to “prevent interference with plaintiff’s duties . . . as

    chairman of the Emerald Lake Village District.”

    Discussion

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b) provides, in part, as follows:

    A temporary restraining order may be granted


    without written or oral notice to the adverse
    party only if (1) it clearly appears from
    specific facts shown by affidavit or by
    verified complaint that immediate and
    irreparable injury, loss or damage will
    result to the applicant before the adverse
    party or that party’s attorney can be heard
    in opposition, and (2) the applicant’s
    attorney certifies to the court in writing
    the efforts . . . which have been made to
    give the notice and the reasons supporting
    the claim that notice should not be required.

    While the complaint is verified plaintiff has not satisfied the

    second requirement of notice or adequate reasons why not.

    Plaintiff is seeking an order to be maintained in an elected

    position to which, on the face of the complaint, defendants

    assert he was not re-elected. The matter should not, under the

    2
    Case 1:06-cv-00044-SM Document 5 Filed 02/21/2006 Page 3 of 3

    rule, be heard ex parte and I recommend that the motion for

    temporary restraining order be denied without prejudice to

    plaintiff’s right to file a motion for preliminary injunction

    after he has made service on the defendants.

    Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be

    filed within ten (10) days of receipt of this notice. Failure to

    file objections within the specified time waives the right to

    appeal the district court’s order. See Unauthorized Practice of

    Law Comm. v. Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992); United

    States v. Valencia-Copete, 792 F.2d 4, 6 (1st Cir. 1986).

    _________________________________
    James R. Muirhead
    United States Magistrate Judge

    Date: February 21, 2006

    cc: Raymond Stankunas, pro se

    You might also like