Neal v. Circuit Court Danville, VA, No. 7:2011cv00438 - Document 3 (W.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 09/21/2011. (kab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK:OFFI t S. ST. at' CE J, OS Cotrl ATROM OKE, VA , x w. FI LED I THE UNI N TED STATES DI STRI CO URT CT FO R TH E W E STER N D I STR I O F V I G I I CT R N A ROANOKE DI I O N V SI B O BBY A .N EAL ,JR. , Pett oner, ii V. DANVI LLE CI RCUI CO URT, T R es pondent . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) SEP 22 1 1 J A C. ULI D BY:' ' DEPU , L ERK' C ERK C i lA cton N o.7: cvvi i 11- 00438 M EM O R AND U M O PI I N N O By:M i hae F.U rbans c l ki U nied St es D i ri Judge t at st ct Bobby A .N e , J . pr e ng pr s , fl t s pe ii f w rt of ha a co pus al r , oce di o e ied hi tton or i be s r , purua t 28U. C.j2254.OnM a 1 2011 Ne lwasf s nt o S. y 9, , a oundno guit byr s ofi a t t ly ea on ns niy i t D mw il Cic t Cour on c r s of a s ul a ba t r a r i tng a r s . N e ha n he le r ui t ha ge s a t nd t e y nd es s i r e t al s a r nty bee co m it d t t ca e ofCe r lSt t H os t i Pe er bur V igi a. Se Va. ppa e l n m te o he r nta a e pial n t s g, r ni e Code.j 1 2- 82. ets whe a dee nti Vigi a i ound no g ly by ras of 9. 1 2, eq.( n fnda n r ni sf t uit e on i a t he i c mit i untrl t t c t oft Com mi so rofM e a He lh of ns niy, s om ted nvol a iy o he usody he s i ne nt l at M e t Readai .Nea a a st bec le ngt c tsfndi t thewa no guit by nal tr ton) l ppe r o halngi he our' i ng ha s t ly r as of i a t H ow e r N ea ha no sa e a s ngl i e lgi e or c za e c a m f e on ns niy. ve , l s t t t d i e nt li bl ogni bl l i or r ifunde j225 Furher i a r he s e da ele r 4. t , t ppeas e ks mage ,whih a e nota l e i ha as s c r vaiabl n be pr ee ngs Pr ie v.Rodrgue 411U. 475 (973 ( be c pusi t rme f asae oc di . es r i z, S. 1 ) ha as or s he e dy or tt pr s ne who c l nge t f c or d z a i n ofhi c i m e a s ks i m e a e o s di r io r hale s he a t lr to s onfne nt nd ee m di t r pee e r l s) Stl f t r i a ast tNea ha f l t e us a poe i cam hema ha eea e. il urhe, t ppe r ha l s aied o xha t ny tntal li y ve unde j225 Pr s r 211U. a 475( fdealcou tc nnotgrntahabe peii unls t r 4. eie, S. t ae r r n a as tton e s he peiine has trtexha td alsaec trme es a ia e . Ac or ngl f a1t e tto r is use 1 tt-our e di valbl) c di y, or 1 hes ras t cour dimis sNea' peii wihoutprj ce. e ons he t s s e ls tton t eudi ( ' EN TER:Thi s - a of Se e be ,2011 ' y a pt m r . * nie St t D i t i t udg t d a es sr c e :
]]>
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.
