Webb v. Keeling, No. 7:2014cv00585 - Document 4 (W.D. Va. 2014)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 10/31/2014. (tvt)

Download PDF

cL s OFFI t. Dl O URT eCE l:. sm AT M NVILE, L VA Fl L 0 e 3 I TH E U N I N TED STATE S D I STR I T C O UR T C FO R TH E W ESTERN DI STR I O F VI G I I CT R N A R O A NO K E D I I O N V SI W I AM SH A NE W EBB , LLI Pe i i r t tone , V. JAM ES V.KEELI NG, R espondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JULI c. DL A D BK C $ ERK jCL Ci lA c i N o.7: : 00585 vi t on 14- v- M EM OM NDUM OPI ON NI By: H on.Jaclson L .K i t ser Se orUnie St e Dit c Judge ni t d at s srit W ila Sha W e aVigi a i t pr e ng pr K ,fl ape ii f rwrtof lim ne bb, r ni nma e oce di o ied tton o i . ha ascor , rua t 28U. C.j2254.Peii rchalnge t vai t ofhi be pus pu s nt o S. ttone le s he ldiy s c n i e n pls n t teM a c 5 2 2 j d me to teCic i Co r o Pityv n a o fn me t t ua t o h r h , 01 ,u g n f h rut u t f ts la i r Count Aferr vi ng t pe ii Ifnd t ti s d be dimis d s y. t e ewi he tton, i ha t houl s s e umma iy purua t rl s nt o Rul 4oft RulsGover ng j2254Cas . e he e ni esl A fde a c tma notg a aj2254ha aspeii unls t peii e use t e r l our y r nt be tton e s he ttoner xha td he r m e esava lbl i t c t oft sa ei whi pe ii rwasco c e 28 U. C. e di ia e n he ours he t t n ch ttone nvit d. S. j225 1 Pr s rv.Rodrg z,411U. 475(1 ) Slvt v.Smih, U. 53(971 . 449; eie iue S. 973 ; a on t 404 S. 1 ) Thee usi r quie e i s tsi d by s e ng r vi w oft cli i t hi s sa ec t xha ton e r m nt s a ife e ki e e he am n he ghe t tt our wihj rs ito t c nsd rt ecam.O' u l a v Bo r k l5 6U. 8 8( 9 9 .I t u id ci n o o ie h li S li n . e c e, 2 S. 3 1 9 ) n v Vigi a ano de t r c c c n exha tsa er m e esi o oft eewa , pe ngon r ni, n- ah ow onvit a us tt e di n ne hr ys de ndi t naur oft cai sr i e Fis,t c c c n fl adie ta he t e he l m a s d. rt he onvit a ie r c ppea t t Vigi aCour of l o he r ni t Appe swih a s e al t ubs quen a t ppea t t Supr m eCour ofVigi ai t Cour ofAppe l r e l o he e t r ni f he t a s uls Webb v. Keeling Doc. 4 agans t c c.VA.CODE j1 1411 Sec t c ctc atc t c cin i the onvit 7.- . ond,he onvi an ta k he onvito cola e aly by f lng a s a e ha spetton w ih t c r ui c t he e t co c w as lt r l ii t t bea ii t he i c t our w r he nvi t c ce a t na lnga adves de sont t Su e Co tofVigi a.l j8. onvitd nd he ppeai n re cii o he prme ur r ni d. 01 lA pe ii ma bedim is d ptrua t Rul 4 i i i cea fom t pettont tapeii i no e il t tton y s s e ls nt o e f t s l r ' he ii ha r ttoner s t ntted o r le . eif Dockets.Justia.com 6 4A)1 ; . u CtR. ;() Fial t ec n it a e h u t e d e b fl asae 5 ( ( ) Va S p. . 59 a . n l h o v c c n x a s rme is y ing tt y, i h b a p tto dr cl wiht Su r meCo r o Vign a VA. DE j8016 4 A) 1. a e s eiin ie ty t he p e u t f r ii. CO . - 5 ( () W hi ve r e i t n,t c ctuli a el m us pr e t cl i s t t Supr m e Cour of che r out s ake he onvi tm t y t es nt he a m o he e t Vigi a a r eve anzi fom t tcou tbe or af de a diti tc tca c i rt r ni nd ec i lng r ha r f e e r l src our n onsde he cai s A ha aspe ii rha no e use sa er medi i t pe ii rhast rgh unde lm . be ttone s t xha t d t t e es f he ttone he i t r s a e 1 w t r i e t ques i pr s nt by a a l e pr dtr a f l t do s 28 U . C . t t a o a s he ton e e ed ny vaiabl oce le nd ais o o. S. j2254() c. Thepeii cla l s tton e ry howst tPe ii ha ttonerha no pr e e c am st t Supr m eCo t s t es nt d l i o he e ur ofVi gi a 2 Petto r s f l e t e r ni . ii ne ' aiur o xhaus s a e r m edi m a t s m a y di m i s lo t t tt e es nda es um r s s a f he pe ii .3 Based upon t fndi t tPe ii rhasnotm a t r quiie s tnta s tton he i ng ha ttone de he e st ubsa il howi ng o d nil fac n t uina rg ta rq ie b 2 U. C. 2 3 , c riiaeo f e a o o si to l ih s e u rd y 8 S. j 25 /) a e t c t f t f a ppeaa lt i de e lbiiy s ni d. EN TER : Th da ofOc obe , 4. y t r 201 A: ', . . 1 . kx Se orUnied St esDititJ n t at src udge 2Pe ii ttonera know l s i t pe ii t the hasnotpr s t t i t ha asc ai st t Supr Cour of c edge n he tton ha e en ed he nsant be l m o he eme t Vigi a eihervi asaehabe c puspettonora a alfom t Cour ofAppe sofVigi a. r ni, t a tt as or ii n ppe r he t al r ni 3Peii rm a r iehi f r lhabe peiin i heuns s f l pr e st cl m st t Supr m eCour of ttone y efl s ede a as tto f ucce suly es nt he ai o he e t Vigi at oughoneoft t eer e de c i d.Peiineri a s d, e r t thi tm et fl sat and r ni hr he hr outs s rbe tto s dvie how ve ,ha s i o ie t e fd rl a a p tt nsi l td Se 2 U.. j2 4 *, CODEj8. -5 ( () Va S p CtR. :() e ea h be s eii s i e . e 8 SC. 2 4( . o mi VA. 016 4A)2 ; . u . . 59a. 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.