IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

GABRIELLE RENOIR-LARGE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Civil Action 2:11-CV-0023

Judge Marbley

Magistrate Judge King

NORMA DARWIN LANE,

Defendant.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiffs, residents of Ohio proceeding without the assistance

of counsel, allege that defendant, a North Carolina resident who is

also proceeding without the assistance of counsel, harassed and

threatened plaintiffs through various internet message boards. This

matter is now before the Court, see Order, Doc. No. 46, on defendant’s

motion for a temporary retraining order and/or preliminary injunction,

Doc. No. 44 (“Defendant’s Motion”).1 For the reasons set out below,

the Court RECOMMENDS that Defendant’s Motion be DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that, since March 2010, defendant has stalked,

threatened, harassed and libeled plaintiffs through various internet

message boards, including the “JonBenet Ramsey Forum” hosted by

Topix.com (“Topix”) and the “Jeffrey MacDonald” message board hosted

1The Court construed defendant’s request for “an Order of Protection” to

be a request for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction. 

Order, Doc. No. 46.

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
by Yuku.com (“Yuku”). Complaint, Doc. No. 7.2 The Complaint further

alleges that defendant assaulted Plaintiff Renoir-Large on or around

October 19, 2010. The Complaint seeks recovery of compensatory and

punitive damages and injunctive relief. 

In her motion,3 defendant alleges that plaintiffs telephoned her

residence on April 21, 2010 and on December 31, 2010 and telephoned

her employer on March 7, 2011. Defendant’s Motion, pp. 1-2. 

Defendant specifically alleges that she received the first call at

5:11 a.m. and there was “[j]ust dead silence.” Id. at 2. Defendant

alleges that, during the second call, Plaintiff David Ransbottom

called her “vulgar names and threatened to come to her [defendant’s]

house and take care of her in person,” which frightened defendant and

her elderly mother. Id. at 1-2. Defendant alleges that, during the

third call, Plaintiff Gabrielle Renoir-Large attempted to speak to

defendant’s employer, Russell Dallas. Id. at 2. Defendant seeks an

order prohibiting plaintiffs “from contacting Defendant Norma Darwin

Lane and any and all witnesses for the Defendant Norma Darwin Lane be

it past, present or future witnesses.” Id. at 3. 

After a briefing schedule was established, Order, Doc. No. 49,

plaintiffs responded to Defendant’s Motion, Doc. No. 52 (“Plaintiffs’

Opposition”). With the filing of defendant’s reply memorandum, Doc.

2Plaintiffs have filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint,

Doc. No. 55, which is not yet at issue and which does not impact the

resolution of Defendant’s Motion.

3Plaintiffs, too, have filed motions for a temporary restraining order

and/or preliminary injunction, Doc. Nos. 14 and 15, which were also referred

to the undersigned for a Report and Recommendation. Order, Doc. No. 22. The

Court intends to consider plaintiffs’ motions for interim injunctive relief

following briefing of plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file an amended

complaint, Doc. No. 55, and the resolution of that motion.

2

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
No. 58 (“Defendant’s Reply”), this matter is now ripe for resolution.4

II. STANDARD

Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party

to seek injunctive relief if she believes that she will suffer

irreparable harm or injury. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a) and (b). A

temporary restraining order relates only to restraints sought without

written or oral notice to the adverse party, whereas the application

is properly treated as one for a preliminary injunction where the

adverse party has been given notice. First Tech. Safety Sys., Inc. v.

Depinet, 11 F.3d 641, 650 (6th Cir. 1993) (citing Reed v. Cleveland

Bd. of Educ., 581 F.2d 570, 573 (6th Cir. 1978)); Fed. R. Civ. P.

65(a) and (b).

“The purpose of a preliminary injunction is always to prevent

irreparable injury so as to preserve the court’s ability to render a

meaningful decision on the merits.” United Food & Commer. Workers

Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Reg’l Transit Auth., 163 F.3d 341,

348 (6th Cir. 1998) (quoting Stenberg v. Cheker Oil Co., 573 F.2d 921,

925 (6th Cir. 1978) (internal quotation marks omitted)). The decision

whether or not to grant a request for interim injunctive relief falls

within the sound discretion of the district court. Friendship

Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, Inc., 679 F.2d 100, 102 (6th Cir.

1982). An injunction, however, is an extraordinary remedy that should

be granted only after the Court has considered the following four

4As this motion can be resolved on the parties’ filings, there is no

need for an evidentiary hearing. See Potter v. Havlicek, No. 3:06-cv-211,

2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10677, at *10 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 14, 2007) (“A hearing is

not always necessary on a motion for a preliminary injunction.”) (citing,

inter alia, 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

Procedure, § 2949).

3

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
factors:

(1) whether the movant has a “strong” likelihood of success

on the merits; (2) whether the movant would otherwise suffer

irreparable injury; (3) whether issuance of a preliminary

injunction would cause substantial harm to others; and (4)

whether the public interest would be served by issuance of a

preliminary injunction.

Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729, 736 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing

McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453, 459 (6th

Cir. 1997) (en banc)) (quoting Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic

Ass’n, 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995)). These four considerations

need not all be met but are rather factors to be balanced. In re

DeLorean Motor Co., 755 F.2d at 1229; Michigan Bell Tel. Co. v.

Engler, 257 F.3d 587, 592 (6th Cir. 2001). “Moreover, a district

court is not required to make specific findings concerning each of the

four factors used in determining a motion for preliminary injunction

if fewer factors are dispositive of the issue.” Jones v. City of

Monroe, 341 F.3d 474, 476 (6th Cir. 2003). Finally, the movant bears

the burden of establishing that “the circumstances clearly demand”

this extraordinary remedy. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban

County Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 573 (6th Cir. 2002). 

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant initially asked this Court to prohibit plaintiffs from

contacting defendant or her witnesses. Defendant has since retreated

from this broad request, but she remains concerned that plaintiffs may

attempt to intimidate her or her witnesses. See Defendant’s Reply, p.

10 (clarifying that defendant “is not trying to block Plaintiff’s

[sic] legal access to witnesses; rather she is only seeking to make

sure they [the witnesses] are not threatened or bullied and that it

4

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
[discovery] be done in a civilized manner”). She therefore seeks a

temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction to prevent

such an occurrence. 

Defendant has failed to establish that “the circumstances clearly

demand” the extraordinary remedy that she seeks. Overstreet, 305 F.3d

at 573. The Court is not persuaded that defendant has established a

strong likelihood that plaintiffs will intimidate witnesses, thereby

causing irreparable harm to defendant. Two of the three telephone

calls cited in Defendant’s Motion5 occurred several months ago – on

April 21, 2010 and on December 31, 2010 – a fact that undermines

defendant’s current claim of immediate and irreparable harm. See,

e.g., Greer v. Detroit Pub. Sch., No. 10-14623, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

4224, at *15 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 18, 2011) (finding that, inter alia, a

five-month delay militated against a finding of irreparable harm). 

Moreover, the timely filings and multiple motions recently filed by

defendant in this litigation establish that none of the three

telephone calls to plaintiff and her employer have impaired her

defense, i.e., the calls have not intimidated defendant from mounting

a defense in this action.

As noted supra, defendant now asks this Court for an order

prohibiting plaintiffs from threatening or bullying witnesses and

requiring that plaintiffs conduct discovery in a “civilized” manner. 

Stated differently, defendant seeks an order essentially requiring

that plaintiffs comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Plaintiffs – indeed all parties, whether proceeding pro se or with the

5In her reply, defendant also refers – without any evidentiary support –

to other alleged telephone calls.

5

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
assistance of counsel – are required to comply with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure. See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113

(1993). All parties to this action are reminded that they must follow

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that they will be subject to

sanctions should they fail to do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37. 

Moreover, the parties are reminded that witness intimidation or

tampering is a federal felony offense, punishable by a term of

imprisonment of up to twenty (20) years. See 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b). To

issue a preliminary injunction in this context would be superfluous

and further persuades this Court that its discretion is better

exercised in denying defendant’s request for the extraordinary relief

sought in Defendant’s Motion. 

It is therefore RECOMMENDED defendant’s motion for a temporary

restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction, Doc. No. 44, be

DENIED.6

If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report

and Recommendation, that party may, within fourteen (14) days, file

and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part

thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 28

U.S.C. §636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). Response to objections must be

filed within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy

6In reaching this conclusion, the Court specifically notes that it need

not and does not consider the repetitive personal attacks and numerous

unrelated exhibits contained in the parties’ filings. These attacks and

filings are simply irrelevant to the resolution of Defendant’s Motion; indeed,

they are irrelevant to the issues in the case. The parties are warned that

the Court will not tolerate abuse of the judicial process or of the

participants in that process.

6

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>
thereof. F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to

the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to

de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the

decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation.

See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation

of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United

States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981).

May 20, 2011 s/Norah McCann King 

 Norah McCann King

 United States Magistrate Judge

7

Case: 2:11-cv-00023-ALM-NMK Doc #: 59 Filed: 05/20/11 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: <pageID>