Kosterow v. Hillsborough County Department of Corrections

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Scott Shawn Kosterow
v. 	Civil No. 17-cv-357-JL
Hillsborough County Department
of Corrections et al.1
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court is plaintiff Scott Shawn Kosterow’s self-
styled “Motion to Quell Plaintiff’s Request for Preliminary
Injunctive Relief” (Doc. No. 30). 	The underlying request for a
preliminary injunction, set forth in Document No. 8, has been
referred to the magistrate judge for a report and
recommendation. 	See Nov. 28, 2017 Order.
The request for a preliminary injunction relates to
Kosterow’s claims regarding the conditions of his pretrial
detention and medical care at the Hillsborough County Department
of Corrections. 	In his “Motion to Quell” (Doc. No. 30),
plaintiff seeks to withdraw the request for a preliminary
injunction, as he was transferred to the custody of the New
1The court has construed the initial pleadings in this
action as intending to state claims against Hillsborough County
and the following Hillsborough County Department of Corrections
(“HCDOC”) personnel: 	“Unknown Nurse #1,” “Unknown Nurse #2,”
“Unknown Medical Provider #1,” Capt. Levierge (whose first name
is unknown), HCDOC Capt. W. Scurry, Health Services
Administrator Denise Hartley, and Superintendent David Dionne.
Case 1:17-cv-00357-JL Document 34 Filed 02/15/18 Page 1 of 2

Hampshire Department of Corrections as a sentenced inmate in
January 2018. 	Defendants have no objection to the motion to
quell. 	See Doc. No. 31. 	Accordingly, the district judge should
grant the motion to quell (Doc. No. 30), and deny as moot the
request for a preliminary injunction, set forth in Document No.
8.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should grant
the motion to quell (Doc. No. 30), and deny as moot the request
for a preliminary injunction set forth in Document No. 8. 	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 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
February 15, 2018
cc: 	Scott Shawn Kosterow, pro se
John A. Curran, Esq.
2
Case 1:17-cv-00357-JL Document 34 Filed 02/15/18 Page 2 of 2