Obataiye-Allah v. Clark et al, No. 7:2014cv00159 - Document 28 (W.D. Va. 2014)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 5/19/2014. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CL S OIFl U. . ST. ERK' 7 CE S DI COURT AT ROANOKE, VA FI LED I TH E UNI N TED STATES DI STRI COURT CT FO R TH E W E STER N D I STR I T O F V I G I I C R N A ROANOKE DI I O N V SI UHURU-EKOU OBATAI ALLAH, S YE- MA 19 2 1 t 21 JULA , I :Y; cAsE No. 1 cv0 d 7:4 e1 9 Pl ntf , ai if M EM ORANDUM OPI ON NI HAROLD CLARK, AL , ZI By: GlnE. nr d e Co a C hi fU ni e St e D i t i tJudge e t d at s s r c Dee n t) fnda ts. By o ni a or r e e e M ay 1 201 t c tde e pl ntf' motons t pi on nd de nt r d 3, 4, he our ni d ai ifs i o a nd t scvi rg sa ton t r42 U. C.j1 3 and de ed hi moi f i e l ut y me hi i l iht ci mde S. 98 ni s tons or ntroc or ij n tv r le. I amoin l eymaldbeo eplitf r c ie t a o d r pan ifse t n u cie eif n to i l ie fr an if e ev d h t r e , litf e ks o k n n t b ig a dto a camsr ltd t te a n me t a d mo in f rijmci e rle me d o rn d iin l li eae o h me d ns n to s o nt tv eif whih t c tha ale y de e Fo t r s ns saed i t or r ofM a 1 201 t c he our s r ad ni d. r he ea o t t n he de y 3, 4, he c tas de e pli ifsc r ntmoton. An a opra eor rwili s t sda . our lo ni s antf ure i 1 ppr it de l s ue hi y The Clr i die t d t s nd c pis of t s m e a um opi on a a ompanyi ek s rce o e o e hi mor nd ni nd cc ng or rt pli if de o a ntf E ER:T i l dyo Ma , 0 4 NT hs V a f y 2 1. Chi Unie St esDiti tJ ef t d at src udge 1 The c tde e pl ntf sprora e e sbec us t pr pos d amende cam swe eno pr ry our nid ai if i m ndm nt a e he o e d li r t ope l j n dt tecamsr ie i hsi ta c mplit Un e Rue 1 () whc g v rsj n e o cams aplitf oie o h li asd n i ni l o an . d r l 8a, ih o en oid r f li , anif i ma brngmuli e cl ms r lt ornot i a lws tagans a sngl deenda . Howe r i o de t na ot r y i tpl ai , eaed , n a ui i t i e f nt ve ,n r r o me he d fnd nsi te smelws t teplitf mutstsy Rue2 ()2 ,whc g v r sj ide o pat s Rue ee a t n h a a ui h anif s aif l 0 a() ih o en on r f ri . l , e 2 a()p r t j id ro mulped fn a so l wh r terg tt rle a sre a an tt m aie o to t 0()2 emis on e f t l ee d nt ny ee h ih o eif se td g is he rss u f he i s ta a i or occ r nce and conc ame rns cton ure ems a c ommon que ton of lw or fc . Pli ifs c rnt pr ed si a a t antf ' ure opos ame ndme sdo notcompl wih t er es Pl ntf i alo a s t tmuli e a ndment t a c aitdo nt y t hes ul . ai if s s dvied ha tpl me s o ompl n notc y wih t s rtofRul 8 a 1 oft Fe r Rul ofCi lPr ed e a s d be r s r d f ompl t he pii es nd 0 he de al es vi oc ur nd houl e e ve or camswhih c d no r as bl havebe n pr e e i hi i ta c li c oul t e ona y e es ntd n s niil ompli . Pl ntf wilnotbeper ted t ant ai if l mit o buidhi c et o m uli e, l s as hr ugh tpl unnec s r a e e s. es ay m ndm nt , 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.
