Funk v. Battle, No. 1:2018cv01196 - Document 20 (E.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 17 Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment; dismissing this civil action; directing clerk to enter judgment in favor of Officer Battle pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 6/18/2019. (aott,c/m 6/19/2019 )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Funk v. Battle Doc. 20 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Christopher Funk, Plaintiff, I:18cvll96(LO/JFA) V. Officer L. Battle, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Christopher Funk,a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983, alleging violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. Defendant Lucilla Correa-Battle("defendant" or "Officer Battle") has filed a motion for summaryjudgment,a memorandum in support of her motion, a video ofthe events in question, and a host ofdocumentary exhibits. Dkt. Nos. 17-18. Plaintiff received the notice required by Local Rule 7(K)and the opportunity to file responsive materials pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975)[Dkt. No. 19], but has failed to submit any materials in opposition to defendant's motion. This matter is therefore ripe for adjudication. For the reasons that follow, defendant's motion for summary judgment will be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed. 1. Background The undisputed facts are as follows.' On June 11,2018, defendant was assigned to Pod C-2 of Rappahannock Regional Jail("RRJ"),the pod in which plaintiff was housed. Battle Aff. 'Because plaintiff has not offered any materials in opposition to defendant's motion for summary judgment,the facts set out in this section derive only from defendant's sworn affidavit [Dkt. No. 18-2], the memorandum oflaw in support ofdefendant's motion [Dkt. No. 18], and the exhibits that accompany the memorandum oflaw [Dkt. No. 18-1, Att. A-Y]. 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.
