Formica v. Aylor et al, No. 7:2014cv00449 - Document 87 (W.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief United States District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 10/14/2016. (tvt)

Download PDF

CL ERKS OFFS U,. ST r CE S DI . rur AT ''.NOKE'VA N'A I . ;!-. .IfD :-f ' ûCT 1i 2 1 26 I TH E UNI N TED STATES DI STRI COURT CT FO R TH E W EST ER N D I STR I O F V I G I A CT R NI R O A N O K E D I SI N W O J A '.' ' L : ULt ' C BY; ' M I AEL FO R M I , CH CA Ca eN o.7:4CV00449 s 1 Pli if antf , V. M EM O R AND U M O PI I N N O F.G. AYLOR,c K , By:Ho GlnE.Conr d n. e a ChifUnie Stt sDititJ e t d a e src udge Dee d n t) fn a ts. By opi on a or re t r d Augus 26,2016,t cour gr nt t de e nt 'm o i ni nd de n e e t he t a ed he f nda s ton frs mmayj g n , dngta plitf M ih e Fo miah dno p e e td ag n ieis e o u r ud me t sn i h t an if c a l r c a t r s ne e un su ofm a e i f cti diput on whih he c d s t ral a n s e c oul how de i r t i fe e e t a s ro m e ca lbe a e ndif r nc o e i us di l ne d by a oft def nda s r lt d t pl ntf s de alco ai s For ia hasnow fld e ny he e nt , ea e o ai if nt mpl nt . m c ie o j cin a dmoinsi r s ns t t c u tsnln se i gr isae n o t c s , e il b e to s n to n epo e o he o r' l g, e k n en ttme t f he a e d n a i o d fn a t'moin f rs mmayj d me t a d a e d n ir h aig t deemiewh t r f e e d n s to o u r u g n , n n vie tay e rn o tr n ehe orno hi de a pr e sse me fom apr e si co to Def nt ha r s t s nt l obl m t m d r e xitng ndii n. enda s ve e ponde d, a gui t tFor c smotonss ul bede e Thec ta e . r ng ha mi a' i ho d nid. our gr es Be a s Fo miasg e a d d td hsmoinsa d o jcin wihn 2 d ysfo e ty c u e r c i n d n ae i to n b e to s t i 8 a r m nr o t j d me t t e c u tc n tu ste a aiig t e Rul 5 ()o t e F d r lRu e o f he u g n , h o r o sr e h m s rsn md r e 9 e f h e ea ls f Cii Pr c d r . I i weletbl h d t a te o sd rto o aj g n a trise ty i a vl o e u e t s l sa i e h t i c n i eain f ud me t fe t nr s n s r e r di r r m e whih s d beus d s rngl ' Pac.l .Co.v. . a 'Fie l .Co. xtaor na y e dy c houl e pa i y. ' ns Am N t r ns l , Formica v. Aylor et al Doc. 87 1 8F.d 3 6 40 ( t Ci.1 98 (n e lctto a d q oain makso te ) TheUntd 4 3 9 , 3 4h r 9 ) itma i ins n u tto r mitd . a ie Stt Co tofAppe sf t Fourh Cic tha rpe t yr ogni dt taj me maybe aes ur al or he t rui s e aedl ec ze ha udg nt n nd d t e Rul 5 () i o l t re cru tn e :( )t a c mmo ae a itr el g me e md r e 9 e n ny h e ic msa c s 1 o c o d t n ne v zi n c a ei c nr ln lw; 2 t a c u tfrn w e d nc no a ia l a til o ()t c re t h ng n o tol g a ( ) o c o n o e vie e t valbe t ra; r 3 o o rc i Dockets.Justia.com ace rer ro 1w o p e e tma ietij tc .Se ,eg,Ga la ov. la c Sa ad Lie la ro f a r r v n nf s nusie e .. gin Rein e tnd r f I .Cö.547F. 230,241n.8(t Ci.2008) Thel l i mos c rai y notGi ende t gi ns , 3d 4h r . ' e s t e t nl u tnt d o ve a l a p l i a to e a dto a c a c t s y t ej g . Cr swht v.E. Du o td n mh p y i g n n d i n l h n e o wa h ud e' o s ie t i ' I pn e . Ne u sa dCo.8 6F.d 1 6 ,1 9 W L 1 6 6*1( t Ci.1 9 ) mo r n ,9 2 36 90 58 4h r 9 0 . The c thasca e u l r vi we Fo m i sne s isons a fnds t tt y do not our r f ly e e d r ca' w ubm s i nd i ha he pr s ntac r um sa ewara i t r que td r le . For c m e ey r sa e t e de eand ee ic tnc r ntng he e se ei f mi a r l e t t s he vi nc a s rslg lc n l inst tj i fiil s o l p y h m f rt d so o th e p re c d se t e a o cuso ha alo fcas h ud a i o he ic mf r e x ein e whiewatng f de a c r ofpr bl m t ta os dt i hi i a c r ton. He doesnotpr s nt l ii or nt l a e o e ha r e l ng s nc r e a i r ee a yne lw o e d n eo ie tf a y ce rer ro lw o ij tc .Th r f r, h c u t l n w a r vie c r d n iy n la ro f a r nusie e eo e t e o r wi l d n h smoin s e i t atro a n j d me t Ass c t ec u twild n hi moi n e y i to s e kng o le r me d u g n . u h, h o r l e y s to f e de i r he i asm oo . An a opra eor rwili s he e t . or vi nta y arng t1 ppr it de l s ue r wih The Clr i die t d t s nda c oft so de t t pl ntf a t co e ofr cor ek s rce o e opy hi r r o he ai if nd o uns l e d f t de e or he f ndan s t. EN TER : çYdyo ocoe,zol6. a r tbr zu s l Chi f nied St t sDiti tJ e t a e src udge ! I a eve , w hehe o notFor i sdentlis we epr e si c tonsundert polc oft n ny nt t rr m ca' a sues r e xitng ondii he iy he Ce r lVigi aRe onalJ i hasno be i o t co tsdetr nai t defndant di no a twih dei r e nta r ni gi al arng n he ur' emi ton hat e s d t c t lbeat idfee c t a ysro sme c l e S eEsel v Ga l, 29U. 97 1 5(9 6 , n ifrn e o n eiu dia ned. e tle . mbe 4 S. , 0 1 7 )

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.