Henderson v. Smith et al, No. 7:2019cv00420 - Document 28 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/26/2019. (ck)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
r. lFkk'f 3 :. '$f7. i :2:CE U EJ.! ., '%T. . j. jy jxoM L;.!: -ç . -.,'. )z N FlL' -:rh R0k 26 2212 IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA JULI A, & Dur nnf.C RK :.BY: ROANOKE DIW SION CL TERR ANCE ROBERT HENDERSON, Plaintiff, HAPPY SM ITH,c K , D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO.7:19CV00420 M EM OM NDUM OPINION By:Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnitid StatesDistrictJùdge PlaintiffTerrance RobertHenderson,a Virginiainmateproceeding pro K ,filed thiscivil rightsaction ptzrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983,theAmericanswith DisabilitiesAct,and state law, allegingthatthe defendantsdenied him appropriatem edicalcare. Thedefendmltshave moved to dismissthe claims for failure to state a claim upon which reliefcould be granted,ptlrsuantto Rule12(b)(6)ofthefederalRulesofCivilProcedure.lThecoul'tmailednoticesadvisingMr. Henderson thatthe courtwould give him 21 days to submit any ftzrther cotmter-affidavits or other relevantevidence contradicting,explaining or avoiding the defendants'evidence before ruling on them otionsto dism iss. Thenoticeswnrned M . 1.Henderson: lfPlaintiffdoesnotrespond to Defendantls'qpleadings,the Courtwillassume thatPlaintiffhaslostinterestin the case,and/orthatPlaintiffagreeswith whatthe Defendantlsq statel ) in their responsive pleadingts). If Plaintiff wishes to continue with the case,it is necessary that Plaintiff respond in an appropriate fashion. Plaintiffm ay wish to respond with counter-affidavitsorotheradditional evidence as outlined above. However.ifPlaintiff does not file som e resnonse within the twenty-one (21)day period.the Courtmav dismissthe case forfailtlre to prosecute. Henderson v. Smith et al Doc. 28 See,e.a.,Notice,ECF No.18 (emphasis in original.) Mr.Henderson sled a motion for an extension of tim e to respond to the defendants'.motions, and the court gzanted him tmtil 1DefendantsStephenHenick(identifiedinthecomplaintonlybyhistitleasDirectorofHealth Services fortheVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections),Karen Stapleton,andCarlA.M anis,by counsel,havetiledamotionto dismiss,ECF No.16. Also by counsel,defendantsNina Townsend,BaI' I' y M ullins,and Happy Smith have filed motionsto dismiss,ECFNos.19 and20.M r.Hendersonhasnotfiledaresponsetoany ofthethreemotions. Dockets.Justia.com RT Novem ber 15,2019,to respond. Since issuing that order,the com'thas received no further communication from M r.Henderson aboutthis case,and the deadline for his response to the defendants'motionshavepassed. Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthat,ptl rsuanttoRule41(b) ofthe FederalRulesofCivilProcedm e,M r.Henderson has failed to prosecute this action. See cenerallyBallardv.Carlson,882F.2d93 (4th Cir.1989). Having duly notiied the parties that M r. Henderson's failtlre to respond to the defendants'dispositivem otionswould be interpreted asfailureto prosecuteand would be cause' fordismissalofthe action withoutprejudice,the courtwilldismiss the case accordingly. A separateorderwillenterthisday. M. r.Henderson isadvised thatifhe intendsto proceed with thisaction,he mustpetition the courtwithin 30 days ofthe date ofentry oftM sorderforreinstatem entofthisaction. Any motion forreinstatementshould providea specifk explanation ?orMr.Henderson'jfailtlreto respond in atimely fashion to the defendants'motionsto dismiss. Them otion forreinstatem ent shallbe accompanied by aresponseto thedefendants'dispositivemotions. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this mem orandllm opirlion and accompanying orderto M r.Henderson and to counselofrecord fo<thedefendants. ENTER:This O 'm day ofNovember, 2019. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 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.
