Shumake v. Smith/Dillard, No. 7:2012cv00174 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Samuel G. Wilson on 4/18/2012. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
RKS OFFI bS II CE 'SX I AT RC/'(' -. '.' '? A i Ka F1!.7 ' !. . I TH E U NI N TED STAT ES DI STRI CO UR T CT FO R T H E W ESTE RN D I STRI T O F V I I I C RG N A RO AN O K E D I I O N V SI DARYLL KEI SHUM AK E, TH Pl ntf , ai if v. KAM EKO LI SM I DI AN TH/ LLARD, Deendant f . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) YYl 11 2 1 22 j a s .. .Kjs ty , ,..k yruu . d, I Ci lA c i N o.7: 2c vi ton 1 v00174 M EM O R AN D UM O PI I N N O By:Sam ue G . is l W l on Unied St D i t ctJudge t ates s ri Pl i t f ,D a yl K e t Shum a , a Vigi a i a e pr e ng pr s brngs t s c vi a n i f r l ih ke r ni nm t oce di o e, i hi i l rghs acin ptrua t 42 U. C.j 198 algi t tt defnda ,t mot rof hi i t to ts nt o S. 3, le ng ha he e nt he he s chidr n,vi a e hi c tt i nal rg s by desr ng hi pe s l e olt d s onsiuto i ht toyi s ronal pr ry. l x s ope t jj reje, Shuma s ks $15 m ilon. U pon consi r ton of hi com pl i , t cour fnds t t M s. ke ee li 2 de a i s a nt he ti ha . Smih ilr i a i ope dee nti a j 1 3 cvi rght a ton a t r or ,dimiss tD lad s n mpr r fnda n 98 i l i s ci nd, heef e s se S u k ' c mpan wih u p eu iea fioo sp rua t o28U.. j1 5 e( )B)i. h ma e s o lit t o t rj dc s rv lu u s n t SC. 91 ()2 ( () 1 . Tosaeac us ofa i unde j1 apl nifmus algefcsi c tngt theha tt a e cton r 983, aitf t le a t ndiai ha s bee de i d ofr g s guar nt d by t Cons iuton or l w s oft U nied St t s a t tt s n pr ve i ht a ee he tt i a he t a e nd ha hi d p i ai nr s le fo c n u tc mmi e b apes na tn u de c lro tt lw.W e t e rv to e utd r m o d c o t d y r o cig n r oo fsae a t s v.At ns 48 U. 42 ( 988) (mphass a d) I t s ca e i i cea fom Shuma s ki , 7 S. 1 e i dde . n hi s , t s l r r ke' aleg tons t t t def nda w a not a tng und r t c or of s a e 1 w he s de t o l ai ha he e nt s ci e he ol t t aw n he s r yed Shu a sme ois Ther f e, hec t s is Shum a sc m ke' m r . e or t our dim s es ke' ompl i a fi ous ant s rvol . 1Speciialy, de e ntdesr d Shu ke' me r t tShu fc l f nda toye ma s mois ha makeha as d he t hol a eve ual pa so d ke r o d nd nt ly s n t t ic l e o he r hidr n. 2 Shu a alo a t che a no e t hi compl nt i c tng t thewoul t ke $5, 0. a a at r t val f m ke s ta s t o s ai , ndiai ha da 75 42 s n lena e ue or deenda ' vi ai ofhi rg s f nts olton s iht. 1 m' l. I F rt e sae ra o s t e c u tds se ti a to wi u p eu ie a fioo s o h ttd e s n , h o r imis s hs ci n t t rj d c s rv lu ho puruan t 28U. C.j 1 5()2)B)i. s to S. 91 e( ( () The Cl r of t Cour i di e t t s nd c e o t s M e or ndum Opi o a t ek he t s r c ed o e opi s f hi m a ni n nd he a co pa ngOr rt t pa te . c m nyi de o he ri s . A e ' > w E E Ti h oApi2 1. NT R:hs ' f r,02 / l Ufi d Sae DititJ d e t tt s src u g 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.
