Taylor v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authorities at Duffield, No. 7:2020cv00147 - Document 12 (W.D. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Elizabeth K. Dillon on 6/5/2020. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Taylor v. Southwest Virginia Regional Jail Authorities at Duffield Case 7:20-cv-00147-EKD-JCH Document 12 Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 69 Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION MATTHEW JACKSON TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHWEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL FACILITY, DUFFIELD, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 7:20-cv-00147 By: Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION This action was brought by plaintiff Matthew Jackson Taylor, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order entered May 5, 2020, the court informed Taylor that he had failed to state a claim against the only defendant he had named and directed him to file an amended complaint, complying with certain requirements, within 21 days. (Dkt. No. 11.) In the same paragraph of the order directing the filing of the amended complaint, the court notified Taylor that “his failure to file the requested information within twenty-one days after entry of this order may result in the dismissal of his complaint.” (Id. at 2.) That order was sent to the address on file for him and has not been returned. The deadline for filing the amended complaint has expired, and the Clerk has not received an amended complaint from Taylor or any request for an extension of time to file one. Because Taylor has failed to comply with the court’s order within the time allotted, the court will dismiss his complaint without prejudice. He may refile his claims in a new case once he is prepared to comply with the court’s orders. An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: June 5, 2020. /s/ Elizabeth K. Dillon Elizabeth K. Dillon United States District Judge Dockets.Justia.com
]]>
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.
