ADAMS v. WELLPATH LLC et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

JON R. ADAMS, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) 2:26-cv-00399-JAW
)
WELLPATH, LLC, et al., )
)
Defendants )

RECOMMENDED DECISION ON
MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Maine Correctional Center, asks the Court for immediate
ex parte injunctive relief in connection with his complaint in which he alleges that
Defendants have failed to provide adequate dental care and an appropriate diet given his
dental condition. (Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, ECF No. 5.) Following a
review of the record and after consideration of Plaintiff’s argument, I recommend the Court
deny Plaintiff’s motion.
D
ISCUSSION
To obtain emergency injunctive relief, Plaintiff must show “(1) a substantial
likelihood of success on the merits, (2) a significant risk of irreparable harm if the
injunction is withheld, (3) a favorable balance of hardships,
1
and (4) a fit (or lack of
friction) between the injunction and the public interest.”
2
Nieves–Marquez v. Puerto Rico,

1
Plaintiff must demonstrate that his claimed injury outweighs any harm that granting the injunctive relief
would inflict upon Defendants. Lancor v. Lebanon Hous. Auth., 760 F. 2d 361, 362 (1st Cir. 1985).
2
Plaintiff must prove that “the public interest will not be adversely affected by the granting of the
injunction.” Planned Parenthood League v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981).
Case 2:26-cv-00399-JAW Document 7 Filed 08/13/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2

353 F.3d 108, 120 (1st Cir. 2003); Hoffman v. Sec’y of State of Me., 574 F. Supp. 2d 179,
186 (D. Me. 2008). “The sine qua non of this four-part inquiry is likelihood of success on
the merits; if the moving party cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed in his quest,
the remaining factors become matters of idle curiosity.” New Comm Wireless Servs., Inc.
v. SprintCom, Inc., 287 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 2002).
Plaintiff seeks ex parte relief, which is relief without notice to the opposing parties.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which governs Plaintiff’s request for immediate
injunctive relief, provides in pertinent part:
(1) The court may issue a temporary restraining order without written or oral
notice to the adverse party or its attorney if:

(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant
before the adverse party can be heard in opposition.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A). “The requirements of Rule 65(b)(1) are not mere technicalities
but establish minimum due process.” Pelletier v. Department of Corrections, No. 1:22-cv -
00260-JDL, 2022 WL 3700671, at *1 (D.Me. Aug. 26, 2022) (citations and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Here, Plaintiff has offered no facts, by affidavit or otherwise, that would support a
finding that he would suffer immediate and irreparable harm before the opposing parties
could be heard in opposition to the motion. Plaintiff, therefore, is not entitled to the ex
parte injunctive relief that he seeks.

Case 2:26-cv-00399-JAW Document 7 Filed 08/13/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3

CONCLUSION
Plaintiff has not demonstrated that he is entitled to ex parte injunctive relief.
Accordingly, I recommend the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining
order.
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 of being served with a copy thereof.

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.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge

Dated this 13th day of August, 2026.
Case 2:26-cv-00399-JAW Document 7 Filed 08/13/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>