Thacker v. Breckon et al, No. 1:2020cv00609 - Document 60 (E.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. ORDERED that defendant Clarke's motion to dismiss [Dkt. No. 35] be and is DENIED. Clarke is further directed to file, or explicitly decline to file, a motion for summary judgment or other appropriate dispositive mot ion within thirty (30) days of the entry date of this Order; and it is further ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to withdraw motion for extension of time [Dkt. No. 41] be and is DENIED as moot (see Order further details). Signed by District Judge Liam O'Grady on 1/18/2022. (swil) (c/s pursuant to Order)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Thacker v. Breckon et al Case 1:20-cv-00609-LO-TCB Document 60 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 4 PageID# 364 Doc. 60 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Matthew L. Thacker, Plaintiff, I;20cv609(LO/TCB) Michael Breckon, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER Matthew L. Thacker, an inmate a Lawrenceville Correctional Center(LCC), has sued Harold Clarke, the Director ofthe Virginia Department of Corrections(VDOC),and two officials at LCC,Captain N. Edmonds,and D.D. Hicks, the Chief of Housing and Programs, claiming that they failed to protect him from harm while confined at LCC. 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983; [Dkt. No. 21-1, hereinafter "Operative Compl."]. Clarke moves to dismiss the claims against him.[Dkt. No. 35]. Thacker, who is proceeding pro se, has received the notice required by Local Civil Rule 7(K)and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528 F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975)[Doc. No. 37], and he opposes Clarke's motion [Dkt. No. 42].' Because the complaint adequately alleges that Clarke is responsible in his policy-making capacity for the VDOC operating procedures used to make the housing determinations that failed to protect Thacker, Clarke's motion will be denied. 1. Background In evaluating Clarke's motion to dismiss, the Court accepts as true the factual allegations in the operative complaint. See Lokhova v. Halper. 995 F.3d 134, 141 (4th Cir. 2021). Thacker 'Along with his opposition brief, Thacker filed what he labeled a "motion to withdraw motion for extension oftime" to respond to Clarke's motion to dismiss.[Dkt. No.41]. Because the Court had never received from Thacker a motion for an extension of time, the motion to withdraw will be denied as moot. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00609-LO-TCB Document 60 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID# 365 Case 1:20-cv-00609-LO-TCB Document 60 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID# 366 Case 1:20-cv-00609-LO-TCB Document 60 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID# 367
]]>
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.
