Whalen v. Rutherford et al, No. 3:2012cv00032 - Document 125 (W.D. Va. 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/7/2013. (lab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFI U. DI COURT CE S. ST. AT R- OKE, VA Fl; t r I TH E U N I N TED STATES D I STRI COU RT CT FOR TH E W ESTERN D I STRI OF V I N I CT RGI A CH ARLOTTESV I LLE D I I ON V SI - ' ' CT 2?2 1 23 JUL .DU E ; WIL'. : DEPUR CL ERK J ACQUELW E M .W HALEN, Ci lA c i N o. 3: 2CV 0003 vi ton 1 2 Pl ntff ai i , M EM O M N D U M O PI I N N O VS. JAM ES LA RRY RU TH ERFO RD,eta1, . By: Dee f ndan s t, H on.G l E.C onrad en Chi fUnied St t D i ti tJ e t a es sr c udge Th sc s wa tidt aj r o J l 1 -1 , 01 a d c n itn wih tejl vedc, i a e s re o u y n uy 6 8 2 3 n , o sse t t h ty r it r j d me twa e tr d a an tplitf o J l 2 2 3. S mei a trtetil p an if b u g n s ne e g i s an if n u y 6, 01 o t fe h ra, litf, y me c e,movedf j me a amatroflw on o ofhe camsa f ane ti . Tha ouns l or udg nt s te a ne r li nd or w ral t m oton w as d ni d by M e or nd Opi on a Or e e e ed Oct r4, 3. i e e m a um ni nd d r nt r obe 201 The c t ha now r ce ved a pr s s i son fom t pl i if i w hi h s of e s our s e i o e ubm s i r he a ntf n c he f r a tona e de e. Thecotr ha de e ne t t e tt ss m i s on a a m oton f r leff om ddii l vi nc tt s t nni d o r a hi ub s i s i or e i r j d me tp rua tt Rul 6 ( )2 o t eFe ea Rue o Cii P o e u e u g n u s n o e 0 b ( ) f h d r l ls f v l r c d r . St t s cncl pli ifhas s aed uc i ty, antf ubmitd e res fom wha a ar t be a De d Book te nti r t ppe s o e m a nt i d by t Cl r of t Cic t Cour f t Count of N e s i a ne he e k he r ui t or he y l on. Pl ntf be i ves t t ai i f le ha t s e resi pugn t t s i on gi n i a de ii by one oft def nda s i t s c e,i he e nt i m he e tm y ve n poston he e nt n hi as n w hi h t tde e c ha f ndan d ed a a e s pror t t de ii ofce t i pr ry i whi h t eni ny war nes , i o he pos ton, r a n ope t n c t pl i if ha ta f re a i e e t t t wines ' hus nd. Pl ntf bele s t t t s he antf d r ns e r d n nt r s o he t s ba ai if ive ha hi i onsse yi t dee ntst tmonyj tfesrle fom j me . nc itnc n he fnda ' esi usii eif r udg nt The courtbelevest t i or aton pr ded doesnots i hat he nf m i ovi upportt concl on ass ed he usi ert by pl i if Ba e on t c tsr vi w oft do um e s i a a st tt D e d Book e t y a ntf . s d he our ' e e he c nt , t ppe r ha he e nr . ' ' wa m a a ar s tofano i of1spe s de s e ul tce i ndensfl don be l o pl ntf by he a t neys a t t ie ha f f ai if r tor , nd ha t Dee Book e r m e el ls e c t i oft de e nt i t t de l ng c e,i l ng t he d nty r y it d era n he f nda s n he m r yi as nc udi he de e n whos t si o t pl i ifnow at ks Thus t e r i and ofis fdoe no f nda t e e tm ny he antf tac . , he nty n tel s t i ca e t tt de e ntha a i e e t i pli ifs pr pe t t t s wa a r of t ndi t ha he f nda d ny ntr s n antf o ry, ha he s wa e he ta fro itr s i t e s b e tra e tt t he h s a d o t a te d f n a tsd p sto rnse f nee t n h u j c e l sae o r u b n , r h t h e e d n ' e o iin answer w er ot s e herwi e f se. s al Ac o dn l ,hec u t id t t h n w s b sind e n tusiyr l f r m j g n . c r ig y t o r fn s ha t e e u miso o s o j tf ei fo ud me t e Pl i if s m oton s lbe de e a ntf i hal ni d. The Cl r i he eby di e t d t s nd c r ii co e o t s M e o a ek s r rce o e e tfed pi s f hi m r ndum Opi on t ni o pl i tf a t c a n if nd o ouns lofr c d f t def nda . e e or or he e nt En e t s 7 h da ofO c obe , 3. t r hi t y t r 201 aw s. zy CHI UN I EF TED STA TES DI STRI J D GE CT U
]]>
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.
