Snodgrass v. Robinson et al, No. 7:2014cv00269 - Document 42 (W.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief United States District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 8/10/2015. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
ClERC oFFI U.S. SI cour cE DI AT ROANOKE,VA FI LED I TI UNI N TE TED STATES DI STW CT COURT FOR THE W ESTERN DI STRI OF VI CT RGI A NI R O A N O I D I SI N QE W O At6 12 2 1 J 25 JULA BY I . D KEVI D.SNODGM SS, , N JR. CASE NO.7: 14CV00269 ; , CL R Pl ntf , ai if M EM ORANDUM OPI ON NI ( AdoptngRe andRec i port omme i ndaton) DAW D ROBI NSON, & , c By: G l n E.C o e nrad Chi fU nied St e D i t i Judge e t at s s r ct Dee fndants. t) Thi prs r cvi rght aci n s e ng m o t r damag a deca aor a s ione i l i s to e ki nea y es nd lr t y nd ijmci rle u d r 4 U. C.j1 8 a d t e Reiius La d Us a l sitinaie nt tve eif n e 2 S. 9 3 n h lgo n e nd n ttto l d z z P ro Ad CG PA' i p e e ty beo et e c u to te Re r a d Re o n ain o e s ns RLUI ' s r sn l fr h o r n h po t n c mme d to f I he ea ha olow, M a itaeJ d eJ e C. p e a d panifso j cinst eeo Fort r sonst tf l gsrt u g o l Ho p n litf b e to h rt . t i c u twilo e z p an i so j cins a o tt ema itaej dg ' rp r,a g a ti h s o r l v m l litY be to , d p h gsrt u es e o t nd rn n e pa t ndd n i p r d fnd ns mo inf rs mmayj g n . r a e y n a t ee a t ' to o u r ud me t The pr K pli if Kevi D.Snodg a s J . i a i ae a Re Oni St t Prs o antf, n r s , r, s n nm t t d on ae ion. . S d r s a s rs t tt e Vigni De a t n o Co cins (t no g a s se t ha h r i a p rme t f ae to ' & VDOCD matr pa s ls ' se s it ) poiy,8 . j1 A.()() o isfc a d a a pl dt h m i t e sl ro 2 3 vilts l 413 V. 3 a -b , n t a e n s p i o i n h l c e mme f 01 , oae RIUI a t Fr Exe cs Cl us oft Fis Am e e tt t Unied St t Co tmton. , PA nd he ee r ie a e he rt ndm n o he t aes nsi i Spe ii aly,Snodgr s c e t tRe Ori ofk il a i t m a trpa sls polc a c fc l a s ontnds ha d ton f a s ppled he se s it i y s a e usvet s ofhi r lgi snceiy t de hi r ques t pa tcpa e i t 201 Rn n xcl i e t s e i ous i rt o ny s e t o ri i t n he 3 mada n Snodgrass v. Robinson et al Doc. 42 f ti vi a i ofhi SlnniM usi r lgi belef . Fi ly,Snodgr s alo c e t t as n olton s l lm ei ous i s nal as s ont nds ha def nda s de i d hi of a pr t c e lbe t i e e t i Ra a n pa tci ton wiho due e nt pzve m o e t d i ry ntr s n m da ri pa i i ut pr s a a i t m a trpa spolc i am n rt tvi a e e oce s nd ppled he se s iy n nne ha olt d qualpr e ton prncpls ot c i i i e. Snodgr s brngs hi cli agans A.Da d Robi on,t VDOC Chi of Ope a i who as i s a ms i t vi ns he ef r tons Dockets.Justia.com L i e nt d t mase pa s polc Ge ge Hi e a VDOC Regi l Adm i sr t whö mpl me e he tr s i y; or nkl , ona nita or add e s Snodg a s gre r s ed r s ' ivanc a e ppea ; Ra l C. M ahe , W a de o Re Oni who l ndal t na r n f d on, i e e e t polc a t tf iiy;a J Ki t ROSP c s co ms l who,a ong wih mplm nt d he iy t ha aclt nd . ng, he a e t eor l t M ahe ,r f ed Snodgr s 'r ques t ta e epton bem a t rt polcy t a l hi t t na e us a s e t ha n xc i de mde he i o low m o pa tcpa ei Rn a n 201 ba e o hi pa tpa tcpai n i t f s. ri i t n m da 3, s d n s s rii to n he a t Dee d n smo df rsl r j d me t Th c u t e e t emoin o t eg omdo f n a t ve o t mma y u g n . e o r d nid h to n h r t f q lfe i t t a al we dico r Snodgr s t n r s nd t de e n s m oton a uai d mm miy nd lo d s ve y. a s he e po ed o f nda t ' i s t t m e isofhi cai s a t c tr f n'd t ma trt J o he rt s l m , nd he our e e e he te o udge Hoppe I hi Re ta . n s por nd Re omm e ton,J c nda i udge Hoppe r co me t t de e nt ' moton be gr nt d i pa ta e m nds ha f nda s i ' e n r nd a d ne i p r. Dee a t h v n t Ild o j cin t J d e Ho pes fn ig a e id n a t fnd ns a e o ie b e to s o u g p ' i dn s nd r c mme d to s S d a sfld o j cinswhih me ey d s g e wi J g Ho p ' lg l e o n ain . no r s ie be to c r l ia r e t ud e p e s e a h c l insandr c oncuso e omme tons Afe #:no rviw oft c lenge pori oft rpor ndai . tr . vo e e . he hal d tons he e t a pe tne pa t o t r c d,t co tfndst t Snodgx s c nc r a e a qua ey a nd ri nt rs f he e or he ur ha as ' o e ns r de t l nd core ty a e s d i t r t Ther f e,Endi i a opdae t do s t co twila r c l d/ s e n he epor. e or ng t ppr t o o, he ur l dopt t ema itaej g ' rpo t n r c mme d to i ise tr t a c nsse t t t er c r a d h gsrt ud e s e r a d e o n ai n n t niey s o itn wi h e o d n h a i a elw .An a oprae o de wilis t sda pplc bl a ppr i t r r l s ue hi y. The Cl r i dieced t s nd c es of t s me o a l opi on a a c e k s r t o e opi hi m r ndlm ni nd c ompa ng nyi o de t pl i ifa t c ms lo r or f rde e nt. r r o antf nd o ot e f ec d o f nda s EN TER:Thi f3 s t t : da ofAugus, 201 y t 5. Chi fUnied St t sDit tJ e t a e sdc udge 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.
