Chapman v. Bacon et al, No. 3:2014cv00641 - Document 131 (E.D. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 5/19/2017. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

Download PDF
Chapman v. Bacon et al Doc. 131 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division LOUIS ROY CHAPMAN, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:14CV641 G. BACON, et aL, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Louis Roy Chapman, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action.^ The matter is before the Court onthe Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 112) filed by Defendants G. Bacon, C. Townes, and Green.^ Chapman has filed a Response, (ECF No. 121.) Defendants have filed a Reply. (ECF No. 122.) Chapman has submitted a Surreply. (ECF No. 123.) Even though Chapman filed his Surreply without first obtaining leave from the Court to do so,^ given his pro se status, the Court will consider *The statute provides, inpertinent part: Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State ... subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.... 42 U.S.C. § 1983. G. Bacon is a Sergeant at Lawrenceville Correctional Center ("LVCC"). (Second Am. Compl. 1, ECF No. 79.) C. Townes is the Unit Manager of 40 Building at LVCC. (Id) Green is a Lieutenant at LVCC. (Id.) ^Rule 7(F)(1) ofthe Local Rules for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia provides that after a party files a responsive brief to a motion, "the moving party may file a reply brief within six (6) calendar days after the service of the opposing party's response brief" E.D. Va. Loc. R. 7(F)(1). "No further briefs or written communications may be filed without first obtaining leave of Court." Id. 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.