Hooks v. Harman et al, No. 1:2018cv00088 - Document 56 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 44 MOTION for Summary Judgment; dismissing Defendant Officer T. Ortiz from this civil matter; granting nunc pro tunc 47 MOTION for Extension of Time; denying Plaintiff's Motions Opposing Summary Judgment 52 ANSWER to Complaint and 53 MOTION to Oppose Qualified Immunity; dismissing this civil action; directing the clerk to enter final judgment in favor of the Defendants; directing the Clerk to close this civil action. Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 11/22/2019. (see order for details)(c/m 11/22/2019spar)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Dockets.Justia.com IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Christopher S. Hooks Plaintiff, I:18cv88(CMH/JFA) J. Harmon & T. Ortiz, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Christopher S. Hooks, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro^, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 alleging that two officers at Nottoway Correctional Center violated his procedural due process rights during disciplinary proceedings. [Dkt. No. 14]. The Court granted summary judgment to defendant J. Harmon,the disciplinary hearing officer, in an Order dated February 12, 2019.[Dkt. No. 40]. Now defendant T. Ortiz, the institutional investigator, moves for summary judgment.[Dkt. No. 44]. Hooks received the notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975), and has filed opposing motions.' [Dkt. Nos. 46, 52-53]. Because the undisputed record does not show that Ortiz violated Hooks's due process rights, her motion for summary judgment will be granted. I. Background Officer Ortiz had been tasked with investigating a note threatening a correctional officer that was received by the "Watch Office" on December 28, 2015.[Dkt. No. 45-1, Harmon Aff. Enclosure B]. The note said,"OFC Watts will be DEAD Monday we will kill her and Rape her 'Hooks filed two opposing motions, one labeled "Answer to Complaint"[Dkt. No. 52], and another labeled "Motion To Oppose Qualified Immunity"[Dkt. No. 53]. The Court construes these together as a combined motion opposing summary judgment. Also, before filing those motions. Hooks moved for an extension of time to respond to Officer Ortiz's motion for summary judgment.[Dkt. No. 47]. The Court will grant this motion nunc pro tune. Hooks v. Harman et al Doc. 56
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
