Sheppard v. Clarke, No. 7:2013cv00432 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 09/24/2013. (kab)

Download PDF
'JFQKSOFFI U. DI O URT CE S. SX AT RCANOKE, A ) V yl gs rj - I THE UNI N TED STATES DI STRI CO URT CT FO R TH E W E STER N D I STR I O F V I G I A CT R M ROANOKE DI I O N V SI sE 2ù 2 1 P 23 JULA C. i ' LLOYD W AYNE SH EPPARD, BY; DEP Y, CLERK CLEM CASE NO.7: 13CV00432 Pettoner ii , M EM O M N DU M O PI O N NI H A R O LD W .CLA R K E, By: G l E .Conr en ad Chi fU nie St t sD i t i tJudge e t d a e sr c R espondent . Ll W a She r aVigni i t pr e ng pr K ,fl t spe ii f a m ' oyd yne ppa d, r i a nma e oce di o ied hi tton or i t o h b a c rus pls a tt 2 U. C.j2 4. Hec aln e t ev l iy o h sc nfn me t f a e s op , t u n o 8 S. r 25 h l g s h ai t f i o i e n e d t e te F b u r 2 0 j d me to t Mo t o r Co ny Cic i Co r u d rwhih h md r h e r ay 0 9 u g n f he n g mey u t r ut u t n e c e sn c ced ofc l a e a agg a t malci wo ng a s nt nce t 30 ye s t nds onvit hid bus nd r vaed i ous undi nd e e d o ar i ionm e wih 1 ye r s pe d. The c tfnds t tt pe ii n m us be s ma iy mprs nt t 5 a s us nde our i ha he tto t um rl dim is d a s c sve, p ru n t 28U. C. 2 4 (9. s s e s uc es i u s a t o S. j 2 41 1 Cour rc dsi c t t tShe r prvi l fld a j2254 peiin co e nng t t e or ndiae ha ppa d e ousy ie tto nc r i he sme j d me t Cii Acin No 7 1 CV0 5 0 whih wa d nid wih p eu ie Th , n u g n , v l to . : 1 0 4 , c s e e t rj dc . us She r s c r nt pe ii i a s eque one,f lng unde t pr bii i 28 U. C. ppa d' ur e tton s ubs nt ali r he ohi ton n S. j2 4 49 a an tas c ndo s c e sv p tto . 2 4 1 g i s e o r u c si e eiin P lsln t j2 4 *) afd r l ititc u t yc nsd rasc n o s c e sv j2 5 t l t o 2 4 , e ea d src o r ma o i e e o d r u c si e 2 4 ra pe ii n onl i peii r s cur s s ik c rii a i fo t Unie St t s Cour ofAppe l tto y f ttone e e pect e ttc ton r m he t d a e t as f rt Fo rhCic i ta t ecamsi t ep tto me tc ran ciei. j2 4 b ( ) Be a e o he u t rut h t h li n h eiin e e ti rtra 2 4()3 . c us 1 Und rRue4b)o teRue Go enn 9 2 5 Cae ,tec u tma s mmai ds s a j2 4 e l ( f h ls v rig 2 4 s s h o r y u rl imis y 25 p tto difipanya p asfo t p tt n a da yatc e e hbt ta tep tin ri no e tte t rl f eiin iq t lil p e r rm he eii n n t h d x iis h t h eio e s t n i d o ei l o a t l e i t dititco t' n he src ur.' She r doesnotde ppa d monsr t t thehasobt ne s ce tt a i by t Cour ofAppe s2 ta e ha ai d uch rik ton he t al, t c u twild s s t epei o wi u p eu iea s c e sv . An a pr p it o d rwi he o r l imis h tt n t t rj dc s u c sie i ho p o rae r e l l e e t sda nt r hi y. The Cl r i die t t s nd c e of t s m e a lm o ni n a a co pa ng e k s r c ed o e opi s hi mor ndl pi o nd c m nyi or rt peii ne . de o tto r EN TER : Ihi s /2 N y ofsept m ber 2013. / da ' e , Chi fU nie St t s D it i J e t d a e s rct udge 2 She d' s ppar s ubmisonst t sc ti uded a c ofhi a i ton f c tfc ton t fl as cond s i o hi our ncl opy s pplcai or eriiai o ie e j2 4p tto Sh p adi a vsdt tsc a a pl ainmus b s b te drcl t teUni dSae Co r 25 eiin. e p r s d ie ha u h n p i to c t e u mitd ie t o h t tts u t y e o Ap a sf rt eF u t Cic i a d u tl h t o r g a t t er q r d c ri to u de j2 44 t sc u t a n t f pe l o h o rh r u t n , n it a c u t r n s h e uie e t kai n n r 2 ,hi o r c n o f p o e do hine j2 4cams r c e n s w 25 li . 2

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.