mime-version: 1.0 content-type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C56821.0DE29610" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C56821.0DE29610 mime-version: 1.0 content-location: file:///C:/23575634/eo04-404.htm content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable content-type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
&n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = ENTRY ORDER
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2004-404
= &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; MAY TERM, 2005
Mellisa and Richard C. LaPage = &n= bsp; } = APPEALED FROM:
v. = &n= bsp; &nbs= p; = &n= bsp; } = Essex Family Court
Eileen Magoni and Ronald M. Magoni &n= bsp; }
} DOCKET NO= . 11-7-04 Exfa
Trial Judge: Barb Za= nder
= ; &= nbsp; &nb= sp; In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
Defendant Ronald M. Magoni appeals from a final relief from abuse order of the Essex Family Court. Defendant contends that he did not threaten plaintiffs, and that plaintiff Melissa L= aPage lied under oath and signed her husband’s name to pleadings. We affirm.
The docket entries show that plaintiffs filed a request for relief from abuse = on July 10, 2004, and that a temporary relief-from-abuse order against defend= ant was issued that day. Followi= ng several continuances, a hearing was held on August 27, 2004, at the conclu= sion of which the court issued a final relief-from-abuse order, prohibiting defendant from either contacting, or coming within 1000 feet of, plaintiffs and their minor childr= en. This pro se appeal followed.
Defendant’s brief consists of a narrative containing a history of his relationship with plaintiffs and their minor children, particularly his concerns that plaint= iffs were mistreating the minor children, and several specific claims that plai= ntiff Melissa LaPage lied about defendant’s alleged threats and other matt= ers, and signed her husband’s name to court documents. Defendant fails, however, to prov= ide any citations to the record to support his claims. Although pro se appellants are ac= corded some leeway on appeal, we will not undertake a search of the record for error. In re Estate of Swinington, 169 Vt. 583, 584 n.* (1999) (mem.) (Court will not search = the record for error on issues inadequately briefed). Moreover, any independent r= eview that we might have undertaken was precluded by defendant’s failure to provide the Court with a transcript of the hearing. Accordingly, we discern no basis = to disturb the judgment. =
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
John A. Dooley, Associate Justice
Denise R. Johnson, Associate Justice