Frene v. Mattis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Robert Roy Frene
v. 	Civil No. 18-cv-577-PB
New Hampshire Department of
Corrections Medical and Forensic
Services Director Paula Mattis
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Robert Roy Frene, an inmate at the New Hampshire
State Prison for Men (“NHSP”), has requested preliminary
injunctive relief in the form of dental care. 	See Doc. No. 1.
The defendant, New Hampshire Department of Corrections (“DOC”)
Medical and Forensics Director Paula Mattis, has objected to
that request. 	See Doc. No. 7.
Background
Frene has alleged that he needs a nonprison dental care
provider to extract nine of his teeth which are “impacted.”
Compl. (Doc. No. 1), at 1. 	Attached to the defendant’s
objection to Frene’s request for injunctive relief is an
affidavit prepared by DOC Dental Office Supervisor Alexis White,
which states that since Frene filed his request for injunctive
relief here, he has seen an oral surgeon at the prison, who
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 8 Filed 02/19/19 Page 1 of 3

2
removed the teeth and root tips at issue in this matter. 	See
Aff. of Alexis White (Doc. No. 7-2), at 2. 	Frene has not filed
anything indicating otherwise.
Discussion
“‘A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must
establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is
likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary
relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that
an injunction is in the public interest.’” 	Glossip v. Gross,
135 S. Ct. 2726, 2736 (2015) (citation omitted); see also March
v. Mills, 867 F.3d 46, 52-53 (1st Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138
S. Ct. 1545 (2018). 	The burden of proof is on the movant. 	See
Esso Std. Oil Co. v. Monroig-Zayas, 445 F.3d 13, 18 (1st Cir.
2006).
The record before the court indicates that Frene has
obtained the relief he sought in his request for an injunction.
Frene, therefore, has failed to meet his burden to demonstrate
that he will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the
court’s issuance of the requested injunction. 	Accordingly, the
district judge should deny Frene’s request for preliminary
injunctive relief as moot.
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 8 Filed 02/19/19 Page 2 of 3

3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny
Frene’s request for preliminary injunctive relief. 	Any
objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed
within fourteen days of receipt of this notice. 	See Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day period may be extended upon
motion. 	Failure to file specific written objections to the
Report and Recommendation within the specified time waives the
right to appeal the district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos
v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
February 19, 2019
cc: 	Robert Roy Frene, pro se
Lawrence Edelman, Esq.
Case 1:18-cv-00577-PB Document 8 Filed 02/19/19 Page 3 of 3