Branham v. Imaging Center, No. 7:2014cv00061 - Document 5 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 2/18/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
cuE.<% o'Fi u. :1 eÅ r c: .. :% AT M NVIkE, L 95 I n r K'1 1 B i I TH E U NI N TED STATES D I STR I T C O UR T C FOR THE W ESTERN DI STRI OF VI CT RGI A NI ROANO KE DI SI VI ON G EO R G E P. BM N H A M ,JR . , Pl ntf , ai i f V. I AGI CENTER M NG Dee f ndant . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JUL I BY; t Ex cuEu ) DEP -Y r ' Ci lA c i N o.7: c 00061 vi t on 14- v- M EM O R AN DU M O PI O N NI By: Hon.Jact on L. ie ls K sr Se or U nie St e D i t i tJudge ni t d at s s r c Ge r P.Br nhn ,J . aVigi ai aepr e di p oK ,tl d aCompl i purua t o ge a m r, r ni nm t oc e ng r ie ant s n t 4 U. C. 1 8 na ngt el gn Ce tri Blc s u g Vign a a t s l d fn a t o 2 S. j 9 3 mi h ma ig n e n a k b r , r ii, s he o e ee d n . Th sma tri b f r mef rs r e ig pls a t o2 U. C. 1 5e .Afe rve n i te s eo e o ce nn , t u n t 8 S. j 91 ( ) tr e iwi g r P an ifss b sin , ds s t ea to wih u p eu ief rfiigt saeacam u o litf u miso s I imis h ci n t o t rj dc o aln o tt li p n whi h r le m a be g a ed. c e if y r nt Pli ifaleg t f l ng f c s physc a a Pli ifsc r c i f ciiy antf l es he olowi a t .A ii n t antf ' ore tonal a lt r f r d Pli ift t l a ng Ce t rf a M lI pos- m r por f o aphysc a a t e ere antf o he m gi n e or n l .A tM e trm ii n t he l gn Ce trsae t t an ifs fe e a ij r t h seb w, n u ie tfe e ly e ma ig n e ttd ha Plitf u fr d n n u y o i lo a d nd n iid mp o e s oft I a ng Ce e ne i nty f gott c ac Pl i if t s he ef l up te t e , he m gi ntr glge l or o ont t antf, o c dul olow- r am nt a t s ndt r po tt t c r tona f iiy untlm ont lt r ai ifbele shec d nd o e he e r o he oreci l aclt i hs a e .Pl ntf ive oul ha a de ha ng s e nts g r o hi ebow i t l ve voi d vi ubs que m e y n s l f he magi Ce e ' e o sha not ng nt rs mpl yee d de a d s ndi t r por. l ye e ng he e t 1m us dim ist a to a i tt I i Ce e be us i c nnotbela et r t s s he c i n gans he mag ng nt r ca e t n i bl mde rs eponde ts i i aj 1 s tf t algedne ien acso omisonsbyise oye . a uperor n 983 ui or he le glg t t r si t mpl es Monelv. pt ofSoc. r s, U. 658,694( 978) Esel v.Gn e 429U. 97,1 l De . Se v .436 S. 1 ; tle mbl, S. 05- 0 ( 9 6 ; wel S o c La r l , 7 F.d5 4 5 6(t Ci. 9 2 .Ac o dn l, 6 1 7 ) Po lv. h p o u e Co.6 8 2 0 , 0 4h r 1 8 ) c r igy I ds s tefd r l li wih u p eu iefrf iigt saeacam u o whc r le ma b imis h e ea cams t o t rj dc o aln o tt li p n ih eif y e g a td, nd1d ciet e e cs s p lme tlmi dcino e a y saelw cam r ltdt r ne a e l o x r ie u pe n a j s ito v r n tt a li eae o n t Complit purua t 28U. C.j13 c . he an , s nt o S. 67() E T R:hs -a oFbur,04 N E 'i) dy f eray2 1. f . ' < ..' w N. ,' . v . Se rUnie St t sDititJ ni t d a e src udge ' -.. * R .-. * * 2 x . . # / R#'
]]>
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.
