Blocker v. Burgins et al, No. 7:2013cv00228 - Document 15 (W.D. Va. 2013)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Samuel G. Wilson on 7/2/2013. (tvt)

Download PDF
e F'YA QFFI $ : nl * ur 4 G: 1 em A q A iK v T eN k A FI LED I THE INI N J TED S TATES DI STRI COURT CT J 22 2 1 UL 23 FO R THE W ESTERN DI STRI OF VI NI CT RGI A J ULA c. ROANOK E DI SI VI ON BY; DE M ARVI BLOCKER, N Pl ntf y ai if C i lA c i n N o.7: v00228 vi t o 13c M EM O M ND U M O PINIO N OFFI CER BURG I e al, NS / . D e endant . f s By: Sam ue G.W is l lon Unied St e Di t i tJudge t at s s r c Pl ntf M a vi Bl ke ,aVig ni i t pr ee ngpr s ,brngst sa ton purua ai if r n oc r r i a nma e oc di o e i hi c i s nt t 42U. C.j1 a ns t vee oye ofW alnsRi Stt Prs (- Rsp,. o S. 983 gai twel mpl es le dge ae ion -w -l ) Blc e h ss p e n e h sj1 8 c mplitf r wih 1 6pa e o j u n l n re ,etr, o k r a u plme td i 9 3 o an-o m t 1 g s f o r a e tis lt s e greva es a i or a compl nt t tge al de c i how W RSP e pl sa eve baly i nc , nd nf m l ai s ha ner ly s rbe m oyee r r l a usngh m, aln hm o j cin bl n me ,a ei wiha d se ln hsmal b i i c l g i be to a e a s tmp rng t n taig i i, i c a nai hi f ont mi tng s ood,a dir ptng hi se Asr i , oc as t c tt or rt nd s u i s lep. elef Bl ker k he our o de he d fn a t t te a po tg , t lnmo e , n ma a ie ' 1tBlc e t e v ( s tme e e d n s o ç p y sa e soe n y a d g zn s' e o k r ç r e hi) i r ; s wihoutbei de l ze ' a movehi t adif e prs ç i a he sae tkes t ng htmani d'; nd m o fer nt ion s l not r t t a unt (i . ( mp . ECFNo 1) h ml' Co l6, ' .. Un e 28U. C.91 5 dsrc c u t aerq ie t r ve p io e c mp an sf r dr S. 91 A, itit o rs r e u rd o e iw rs n r o lit o co pla ew ih t ba i r esofpl di a i doi s t c t us e t rEi ntf m i nc t he sc ul ea ng, nd n ng o, he our m t ihe tde iy cog z e cai ordimi st c niabl l ms s s he ompl i ,ora pori n oft c ant ny to he ompl i ,i t c ant f he ompl i ... ant f l t saeacai uponwhihrle ma beg a t ' j 1 5A( .A eo ai mus alge ais o tt l m c eif y r ned. 91 b) ' mpl nt t le Blocker v. Burgins et al Doc. 15 çe énough f t t sa ea cai t r le t ti pl usbl on isf c ' Gi aa v.J hns 521 acs o tt l m o e if ha s a i e t a e.' m t no o on, F.d2 , 0 ( t Ci. 0 )( u tn BelAt. p . Two v 5 0U. 5 4, 7 ( 0 ). 3 98 3 2 4h r 2 08 G o ic l lCo v. mbl, 5 S. 4 5 0 20 7) lThedoc ti recl s ke nco r ty howso y eghtdefnd s I addii t t s eiht Bl ke hasnam e t nl i e ant. n ton o ho e g , oc r d he wa de Lt Ki SgtLi a ame roft c r to saf na e i c a ' ThoughBl kerna s r n, . ng, . ght nd mbe he orecins t f m d s cry. M ' oc me t vedeenda si hi compl nt healo i caest tt ea et he s' saest ti ma a 60sa fof wel f nt n s ai , s ndi t ha her r l r 'and tt ha i ot as ny s tf sv rl fee t e at ns' a ea u e hm.( mp. ECFNo 1) e ea difrn d p rme t'h v b s d i Co 14, .. Dockets.Justia.com Thef m iirr l sofpl di a e g e ty r l xed î pr s pl i if ,howe r a ltga s a la u e ea ng r r a l e a oç o e antfs ve , nd ii nt w ih m e ior ous c a m s s ul notbe s y i by t c c r qui e e s Se Bea t v.Ciy t rt i l i ho d t m ed e hni al e r m nt . e ude t t ofHa t 775F. 1 1 mpon, 2d 274, 277-78( h Ci.1 .Stl,herlxai oft pladi r es 4t r 985) ilt ea ton he e ng ul i notwiho lm is co t us,a am i m um,bea et dic r fom t c s t ut i t .A ur m t t ni bl o s e n ' he ompli t r ant he pa te beng s and t a lge c ri s i ued he le d onduc on whi e c cai r t . Though r l xe t t ch a h l m ess e a d, he sa d r sild ma dsg nea c h rnc , n id e n trq iec u t çoc n t eu q e to s tn ad tl e n e rl o ee e a d t o s o e ur o rs l o jl p u si n t r ne rs r ypr e e t t m.'J a 1 ve quael esntd o he ' Z t 278. He e aswih hi pr vi t compl nt , Bl ke hasa l d anum be ofwr ngsbut r, lege r o t s e ous wo ai s2 oc r ofe e s an f c uals f r d c t a t uppor f t t or hem,l r l f l d t co c a pa tc a wr t a a gey aie o nne t ny riulr ong o ny pari ulrde e nt3andnegl ced t gr tc a f nda , e t o ound hi co pl nto a c tt i na orsat o y s m ai n ny onsiuto l t ut r pr son.Bl rofe sltl c extf t 11 pa hehasa tc d t hi c ovii ocke f r ite ont or he 6 ges ta he o s ompli ,a ant nd m a oft e pa ha no r adiy dice i e r a i hi t hi alega i . W hie t ny hos ges ve e l s m bl el tons p o s l tons l he pladi r l sdono i pos a e tng sa r on Bl ker a whiet c ti s i io of e ng u e t m e n xac i t nda d oc , nd l he our s olct us hi c am s he mus ofe s ef hol on whih t de e nt c n ba ea a we oron whi s li , t f r om oot d c he f nda s a s n ns r ch t ec u t a b s aj d me t c r igy,hec t'ds se Blc e ' c mp an wih u h o r c n a e u g n .Ac o dn l t o u imis s o k rs o lit t o t t prj ief rfit et saeacam. eudc o all o tt li r EN TER :J y 2,201 ul 3. zy' ' y UNI TED STA TES D I STRI JU D GE CT 2S eB1c e v. ade , :3 v 01 ( . Va Ap . 5 2 3 . o k rv. r ii SaePrsn e o k r W r n 7 1 c 0 03 W D. . r 2 , 01 )Blc e Vigna tt io , Ofiil. . S. ,71 c 0 0 7( D. .a . 4 2 3 . fcas W R. P. :3 v 0 2 W. Va J n 2 , 01 ) 3For i t nce Bl ke c ns a , oc r ompl nst tt defnda sr gulry puthum a e r e ands ai ha he e nt e a l n xcem nt emeni hi n s f ood. l t t t tcond tw o d be asunc tmtonalasi woul be a r nt Fr m Bl r scompl nt f rl ha e, uc ul onsi i t d bhor e . o ocke ' ai , howe r t co tca ve ,he ur nnottet algedcon a i to t a oneoft t vedefnda s a Bl rofesno i he le t m nain o ny he wel e nt, nd ocke f r s por f t al tonot t nhi ce dis tsaci wih W RSP' f sr c a hi baeopi ont tt up t or he legai her ha s lar saif ton t S ood-e vie nd s r ni ha he fo i ç lal c na nae ' (e . ..Ex . , , No 11)l a oh re a l, o k ralg sta o o d si ery o tmi td. S e e:, s 3 6 ECF . - . n n te x mpe Blc e le e h t n c ' M a c l1 201 de e ntBur nshi hi i t che ta defnda H alkikedhi ,butheofe sno fct r h , 3, f nda gi t m n he s nd e nt l c m fr as whas ri s toeve n uppor oft ealgai . t hos le tons 2

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.