Mullen v. Kissell et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Martha Mullen
v. 	Case No. 22-cv-575-JL
Edward Kissell, Jr,
Bedford High School, and
Bedford High School Employee John Doe
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Martha Mullen, appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis, has sued Edward Kissell, Jr., Bedford (New Hampshire)
High School (“BHS”) and an unnamed BHS employee. 	See Complaint
(Doc. No. 1). 	Ms. Mullen’s complaint was referred to this
magistrate judge for preliminary review, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2) and LR 4.3(d)(2). 	On January 19, 2023, the court
granted Ms. Mullen time to amend her complaint “to assert
specific facts giving rise to a claim that her right to vote was
curtailed by one or more defendants.” 	January 19, 2023 Order
(Doc. No. 3) at 3. On March 1, 2023, Ms. Mullen filed a document
captioned “Motion for Sanctions.” (Doc. No. 6). 	Given the
language of the filing, which refers to timeliness in relation
to a snowstorm, the court construes this filing as a response to
the court’s prior order.
Case 1:22-cv-00575-JL Document 7 Filed 03/10/23 Page 1 of 3

2
Ms. Mullen’s filing contains one paragraph, which repeats
her previous allegation that her children were photographed
without her knowledge.1 	See January 19, 2023 Order (Doc. No. 3)
at 2; Attachment to Pltf. Mot. (Doc. No. 6-1) at 1. 	But her
filing contains no allegations regarding interference with her
right to vote or, as required by the court’s previous order,
“facts describing who took the photograph, or the specific
circumstances under which the picture was taken.” 	Id. at 2-3.
Accordingly, the court finds that the complaint and recent
filing fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and recommends that the district judge dismiss this case.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned recommends that the
district judge dismiss this case for failure to state a claim.
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 Nat'l Ins. Co., 617 F.3d
554, 564 (1st Cir. 2010). 	Any issues not preserved by such
1Although Ms. Mullen references a restraining order with
respect to the photographs, responsibility for enforcement of a
state-court restraining order generally lies with that court.
Case 1:22-cv-00575-JL Document 7 Filed 03/10/23 Page 2 of 3

3
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
March 10, 2023
cc: 	Martha Mullen, pro se
Case 1:22-cv-00575-JL Document 7 Filed 03/10/23 Page 3 of 3