Doiron v. Brown et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Arthur Doiron
v. 	Case No. 21-cv-360-SM
Jim Brown, et al.
Report and Recommendation
Arthur Doiron filed an action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
alleging violation of his federal constitutional rights by
employees of the New Hampshire Department of Corrections. 	He
filed two motions for preliminary injunctions. 	In the first
motion (doc. no. 11), Doiron addresses a medical issue that is
not part of this case and seeks an order to require the New
Hampshire State Prison to schedule a consult with a urologist
and to schedule surgery. 	In the second motion (doc. no. 13),
Doiron seeks an order for his immediate release from prison and
to have the FOCUS program removed from his CORIS file with a new
requirement for substance abuse treatment outside of the prison.
The issues and relief Doiron seeks in the first motion are
not part of this case. 	For that reason, the first motion (doc.
no. 11) should be denied without prejudice to raise those
matters in a separate action.
The issues alleged in the second motion (doc. 13) arose at
the Northern New Hampshire Correctional Facility in Berlin.
Doiron was moved to the New Hampshire State Prison in Concord in
Case 1:21-cv-00360-SM Document 15 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 3

2
December of 2021. 	Therefore, it appears that the issues raised
for preliminary injunctive relief are moot. 	Even if the issues
remain in controversy, despite Doiron’s transfer to Concord, the
relief Doiron seeks is not available in the context of this case
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 	Therefore, the second
motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. no. 13) should be
denied.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district court should deny
the motions for preliminary injunctions (doc. nos. 11 and 13).
The first motion (doc. no. 11) should be denied without
prejudice to file a separate action to address the issues raised
in the motion. 	The second motion (doc. no. 13) should be denied
without prejudice to filing a motion seeking available
preliminary injunctive relief and to the extent the issues
raised are meritorious, not moot, and arise from the claims that
are served following preliminary review.
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. 	Only those issues raised in the objection(s) to
this Report and Recommendation are subject to review in the
district court. 	See Sch. Union No. 37 v. United Natl Ins. Co.,
Case 1:21-cv-00360-SM Document 15 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 3

3
617 F.3d 554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by
such objection(s) are precluded on appeal. 	See id. 	Failure to
file any objections 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
April 19, 2022
cc: Arthur Doiron, pro se
Case 1:21-cv-00360-SM Document 15 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 3