1Although not named in the heading of Few’s complaint, the

narrative of the complaint alleges sufficient facts against

Jolene Knight-Ballou, Linda Stalk, and Wayne Evans for me to find

that Few intended to name Knight-Ballou, Stalk, and Evans as

defendants to this action. Accordingly, I will consider them to

be properly named defendants to this action and direct that the

appropriate claims be served on them as directed in this Order.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Sharon Few

v. Civil No. 06-cv-427-SM

Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.,

Liberty Life Assurance Co., et al.1

O R D E R

Before the Court is the complaint of plaintiff Sharon Few,

who has filed suit against Liberty Mutual Life Insurance Company

and Liberty Life Assurance Company (hereinafter referred to

collectively as “Liberty defendants”), and several Liberty

employees. Few’s claims allege violations of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et

seq., the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act

(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. § 1962, et seq., federal constitutional and

statutory prohibitions against discrimination based on age and

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 8 Filed 05/16/07 Page 1 of 3
2

race, the federal constitution, the Freedom of Information Act

(“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. § 552, et seq., and a number of rights arising

under the laws of various states.

As Few is proceeding both pro se and in forma pauperis, the

complaint is before me for preliminary review. See United States

District Court for the District of New Hampshire Local Rules

(“LR”) 4.3(d)(1)(B). As fully explained in my Report and

Recommendation issued simultaneously with this Order, I direct

that the ERISA and intentional infliction of emotional distress

claims be served against defendants Liberty Mutual Insurance

Company, Liberty Life Assurance Company, Knight-Ballou, Stalk,

and Evans, and direct that the RICO claim be served against

Knight-Ballou, Stalk, and Evans.

Without commenting on the merits of the claims served, I

order that the complaint be served on Defendants. A review of

the file indicates that while Few has completed summons forms for

the Liberty defendants, she has not prepared summons forms for

defendants Knight-Ballou, Stalk, and Evans. Plaintiff shall

prepare summonses for each of these three defendants and submit

them to the Clerk’s office within thirty (30) days of the date of

this order. Upon receipt of the completed summonses, the Clerk’s

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 8 Filed 05/16/07 Page 2 of 3
2The summons already in the file may be issued immediately.

3

office shall issue the summonses against defendants2 and forward

to the United States Marshal for the District of New Hampshire

(the “U.S. Marshal’s office”) the summonses and copies of the

complaint (document no. 1), the Report and Recommendation issued

this date, and this Order. Upon receipt of the necessary

documentation, the U.S. Marshal’s office shall effect service

upon Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). 

Defendants are instructed to answer or otherwise plead

within twenty days of service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A). 

Plaintiff is instructed that all future pleadings, written

motions, notices, or similar papers shall be served directly on

the Defendants by delivering or mailing the materials to them or

their attorney(s), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b). 

SO ORDERED.

________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: May 16, 2007

cc: Sharon Few, pro se

Case 1:06-cv-00427-JL Document 8 Filed 05/16/07 Page 3 of 3