Arhip

I.

INTRODUCTION

Appellant David Michael Hunt (Hunt), proceeding in propria persona, appeals from the issuance of a domestic violence restraining order against him after a contested hearing. He contends the trial court erred in granting respondent Serghei Arhip‟s (Arhip) request for the restraining order because the trial court: (1) relied on conduct that does not legally constitute “abuse”; (2) considered evidence not properly filed or served on Hunt; (3) violated his right to equal protection of the law by holding him to a higher standard of evidence than that applied to Arhip; and (4) abused its discretion by imposing a restraining order that was overly restrictive. Arhip has failed to file a respondent‟s brief. Having considered the record below and the arguments raised by Hunt on appeal, we affirm the order.

II.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUNDS

Arhip filed a request for domestic violence restraining order using Judicial Council form DV-100 on January 4, 2012.1 In it, Arhip alleged that on January 3, Hunt vandalized Arhip‟s apartment twice, tried to choke Arhip, bit his neck, and harassed Arhip by “calling [him] constantly.” The request sought a stay-away order…