AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant, seeking a permanent injunction. The complaint alleged that the Defendant physically and verbally attacked the Plaintiff in person and sent threatening emails about the Plaintiff to his colleagues and coworkers. The Plaintiff supported his complaint with a police report he filed and copies of emails sent by the Defendant. The Defendant, acting as a self-represented litigant, appealed the district court's order granting the permanent injunction to the Plaintiff (paras 1, 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff-Appellee: Argued that the Defendant physically and verbally attacked him and sent threatening emails about him to his colleagues and coworkers. Supported the complaint with a police report and copies of emails (para 4).
• Defendant-Appellant: Contended that the evidence was insufficient to support the restraining order. Failed to provide a complete summary of the testimony or evidence presented in district court. Relied on the absence of evidence showing he sent threatening emails or texts to the Plaintiff or his family members and referred to findings made by a nonjudicial hearing panel (paras 2, 4-5).

Legal Issues

• Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the district court's order granting Plaintiff a permanent injunction against Defendant.
• Whether the Defendant's failure to provide a complete summary of the testimony or evidence affects his appeal.
• Whether the absence of evidence showing that Defendant sent threatening emails or texts to Plaintiff or his family members demonstrates error in the district court's decision.
• Whether findings made by a nonjudicial hearing panel are relevant to the sufficiency of the evidence presented in district court (paras 2, 4-5).

Disposition

• The appeal was affirmed, and the district court's order granting the Plaintiff a permanent injunction against the Defendant was upheld (para 6).

Reasons

• DUFFY, Judge (with JENNIFER L. ATTREP, Chief Judge, and KRISTINA BOGARDUS, Judge concurring):
  The Defendant's failure to provide a complete summary of the testimony or evidence presented at the district court level hindered the appellate court's ability to grant relief on the grounds asserted by the Defendant. The appellate court emphasized the Defendant's responsibility to demonstrate error and provide a concise and accurate summary of facts material to the issues on appeal (para 2).
  The appellate court presumed the correctness of the district court's rulings, noting that Plaintiff's own testimony constitutes evidence upon which the district court could rely. The court deferred to the district court's resolution of conflicts in testimony and its determination of credibility (para 3).
  The appellate court was not persuaded by the Defendant's reliance on the absence of evidence showing he sent threatening emails or texts directly to the Plaintiff or his family members, as the Plaintiff's complaint did not allege such actions. The court found no need for the Plaintiff to have made such allegations to seek the restraining order (para 4).
  The appellate court disregarded the Defendant's reference to findings made by a nonjudicial hearing panel, as those proceedings were not part of the current case record and presented no issue for review (para 5).
  The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the Defendant did not demonstrate error (para 6).