Hutchins v. Willett, et. al., No. 1:2019cv00149 - Document 60 (E.D. Va. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 2/16/2021. (dest, ) (copy mailed to Plaintiff on 2/17/21)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hutchins v. Willett, et. al. Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 560 Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Todd A. Hutchins, Plaintiff, ) ) V. ) ) James C. Willett, et aL, Defendants. ) ) ) l:19cvl49(LO/IDD) MEMORANDUM OPINION Todd Hutchins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has sued Captain Brian Hughes,an officer at Pamimkey Regional Jail, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA),42 U.S.C. § 12132-33, claiming that the captain retaliated against him for seeking a shower to accommodate his amputated right leg.[Dkt. No. 18]. Hughes has moved for summary judgment.[Dkt. No. 24].' Hutchins received the notice required by Local Rule 7(K)and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975)[Dkt. No. 24], and filed a response in opposition.[Dkt. Nos. 30, 33]. Because the record does not reflect that Hughes unlawfully retaliated against Hutchins for seeking an ADA accommodation, the Court will grant defendant's motion for summary judgment on that ground. Since Hughes moved for summary judgment, however, the Fourth Circuit adopted a new test for analyzing First Amendment retaliation claims. Thus,the Court will deny summary judgment on the First Amendment claim without prejudice to defendant renewing the motion based on the Fourth Circuit's new standard. 'Four days before filing the motion for summary judgment. Captain Hughes moved for an extension oftime to file the motion.[Dkt. No. 22]. For good cause shown,that motion shall be granted nunc pro tune. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 561 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 562 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 563 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 564 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 565 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID# 566 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID# 567 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 568 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID# 569 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID# 570 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 571 Case 1:19-cv-00149-LO-IDD Document 60 Filed 02/16/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID# 572
]]>
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.
