-RSB Rountree v. Clark et al, No. 7:2011cv00572 - Document 7 (W.D. Va. 2011)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER denying 2 Motion for TRO. Signed by Judge James C. Turk on 12/16/2011. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
!*' RK$ OFFt) k O Ol COURT '*R CF 1 SX t jk,/!t kk, . .a.. $ . VA , -J . -; 1! . .?, . . I TH E UN I N TED STA TES D I STR I CO UR T CT FO R TH E W ESTERN DI STR I T O F V I G I I C R N A R O AN OK E DIVISIO N 0EC !6 2 1 21 2 Ui: .' ' W $ ' U / C ''' * C RK BY; PIPER A . RO UN TR EE, D Ca e N o.7: 1 0057 s l CV 2 Pl i if a ntf , O PI I N A ND O RD ER N O HAROLD CLARK, AL , :I By:J mesC. k n Tur Se orUnied St t sD i t i t J e ni t a e s rc udg Dee nts. fnda t) Pli ifPi rA.Rounteem o t c tf a e pa t tm por r r sr ni or r antf pe r ves he our or n x re e a y e tai ng de a pe a e tn u cin dr cigp io o fcasa F u n n Co r cin lCe trf rW o n nd nn n n ij n to , ie tn rs n fiil t l v n a re to a n e o me ( FCCW )t c ngenume o polci rgadi i ts rlgi rght,a ce st l al o ha r us i es e r ng nmae ' ei ous i s c s o eg m a e i l , c st t gr e nc pr dur ,a ot rm a t r . H e pl a ng,whi h i a s t ra s ac es o he i va e oce es nd he te s r e di c s lo s yl d asa c pl i ha bee c tonaly f l d by s pa a e or r a a ci lrght c pl i t e om a nt s n ondii l ie e r t de s vi i s om a nt purua t 28U. C.j1 s nto S. 983.Uponrviw ofhe s s i , we r t c t lde he e e r ubmisons ho ve,he our wil ny r s pa a e m o i f an e pa t t m por r r s r ni or r e rt ton or x re e a y e tai ng de . Te por r r s r i ng or r a e i s d,w ihoutnotce onl r r l w he t m o nt m a y e t a ni de s r s ue t i , y a e y, n he va prvest ts wils frij yi rle i no grntdbeor t a repa t c dbenoiid o ha he l ufe nur f eif s t a e f e he dves ry oul tfe a ha ano t t t r s nd ve pporuniy o epond.Se Fe r Rul ofCi lPr dur 65( .l s e deal e vi oce e b) n uppor of t s h a m oton,t pl i i fm us pr e t pe fc f c s i a af i vi ora ve i i d c pl i uc i he a ntf t es nt t cii a t n n fda t s r fe om a nt ce rys wgn lta i dit a d i e aa eij r ,o s o d ma ewil e ut otemo n lal ho i g h t mme ae n r p rbl n u y ls , r a g l rs lt h va t r b f r t a v repa t c nb h ad i o p sto 'a dmu tC e tl )i wrtn a ye frs eo e he d e s ry a e e r n p o iin' n s t ri y n iig n fo t c t ma t gi notc a t r s nswhyi s ul no berquie ' Rul 65( ( ) de o ve ie nd he ea o t ho d t e rd. ' e b)1. Rount e f l t pr de a a fda ts ti f t s cii f c s c r e ais o ovi n f i vi e tng orh pe fc a t once ni t m n r i r ng he nne n whihs wils fe çmme it a dirp rbl ij r 'wi o talmme it c u t c he l u fr s dae n re aa e n u y' t u !i dae o r i h i e ve i n. She a s f l t c riy a r s t tt de e nt r nto lo ais o e tf ny ea on ha he f ndantprs ofi i l s d no be ion fc a s houl t notte oft l w s ta gr nt d t opporunii i e i t no m alltga i pr es t ii d he a ui nd a e he t tes nher nt n he r ii ton oc s o r s o dt h ralg to s Ro n resrq e t f rp nna e tij n tverle a en tda dwil e p n o e le ain . u te ' e u ss o e n n nu ci eif r oe n l be a e s d i t duecoure oft cvi a ton. ddr s e n he s he i l c i Fort r a ons s a e i i now O R DER ED t tpl i if s m oton f e pa t he e s t t d, t s ha a ntf ' i or x re tmpo ayr sri ngor ( No.2)i DENI e r r etani der ECF s ED. TheCl r i diec e t s ac oft sor rt t pli ifa t couns ofr c d e k s r t d o end opy hi de o he antf nd o el e or f t def nda s or he e nt . E TE N R: T i f a o Dee e,0 1 hs ' y f cmbr2 1. XWd Se i r Unie St t D i ti J e o t d a es s r udg
]]>
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.
