Hicks v. Day et al, No. 7:2022cv00235 - Document 86 (W.D. Va. 2024)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 4/11/2024. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(aab)

Download PDF
Hicks v. Day et al Doc. 86 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION DEONTA JEROME HICKS, Plaintiff, v. STACY DAY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) $-&3,h4 0''*$& 6 4 %*45 $0635 "5 30"/0,& 7" '*-&% April 11, 2024 -"63" " "645*/ $-&3, #: s/A. Beeson %&165: $-&3, Civil Action No. 7:22cv00235 MEMORANDUM OPINION By: Pamela Meade Sargent United States Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Deonta Jerome Hicks, (“Hicks”), proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 9, 2024, the defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, (“Motion”), and on March 11, 2024, the court issued a Notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975) (“Notice”). (See Docket Item Nos. 81 & 85.) The Notice gave Hicks 21 days to file a response to the Motion and advised him that, if he did not respond to the Motion, the court would “assume that [he] has lost interest in the case, and/or that [he] agrees with what the Defendant[s] state[] in their responsive pleading[].” (Docket Item No. 85.) The Notice further advised Hicks that, if he wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that [he] respond in an appropriate fashion,” and that if he failed to file a response to the Motion within the time allotted, the court “may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.” (Docket Item No. 85.) To date, Hicks has not responded to the Motion and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to the parties. ENTERED: April 11, 2024. /s/ Pamela Meade Sargent UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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.