Davis v. Raines et al, No. 7:2015cv00380 - Document 31 (W.D. Va. 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Glen E. Conrad on 7/1/2016. (slt)

Download PDF

I TH E UN I N TED STA TES DI STRI T C O UR T C FO R TH E W E STER N DI STRI T O F V I I A C RG M R OA N O K E D I I O N V SI cl - s OFFI U.S. SX COURT EM CE DI AT RGANOKE, VA FIED L J 21 2 1 UL 2s C. zL ERK Y; GM W DAVI S, CASE NO.7: 5CV00380 , 1 CU ERK Pl ntf , ai if V. M E M O R AN D UM O PI I N N O STEPH EN R M NES, By: G ln E.Conrad e C hi fU nie St e D i t i tJudge e t d at s s r c D efendant . Ga y Da s whie i a c r t d,fl d a pr K cvi dght c r vi, l nc r e a e ie o i l s ompl i ,pur ua t 42 ant s nt o U. C.j 1 8 ,n n o h rt n s algn t a Dee d n S e e Ran s a ofd t p lc S. 9 3 mo g t e hig , le ig h t f n a t tph n i e , n f u y oie ofi e ,us d e es i f c agans hi dui hi a r s . Be aus t co tno l rha a fc r e xc sve or e i t m t ng s re t c e he ur onge s c re tmaln a d e sf rDa i,h c s wi b d s se wi u p eu ie u r n i g d r s o vs t e a e l e imisd t t rj dc . i l ho I te o d rc n iin l fln te c s ( No 5 ,t e c u ta v sd Da i t a a n h r e o dto al iig h a e ECF . ) h o r d ie v s h t y f iur t updaehi m alng a es a trata f rorr e e fom i a c r ton woul r ul i al e o t s ii ddr s fe r ns e elas r nc r e a i d es t n dim is oft sa ton.The e fe ,Ra ne fl d a moton t dimis t whih Da sr s s s al hi c i r a tr i s ie i o s s, o c vi e ponde d. By opi o a o de e er d Jme 1 201 t c tde e t m o i t dim isi pa ta ni n nd r r nt e t 3, 6, he our ni d he ton o s s n r nd s ta d a l e f ra y mo in f rsl r j g n t b fld Th c pis o t Jme 1 , e e di o n to o l n mma y ud me t o e ie . e o e f he t 3 201 ,o i o a o d rta wee. ald t plitf a t j i a d e shep o i dha e b e 6 pnin nd r e h t r m ie o anif t he al d r s r vde v e n rt r e a t eiea e wi a n tto i dc t g t tpanifi n lng ra t j i a d e un d s md lv rbl, t o ain n iai ha litf s o o e t he al n h n : ofi i swer t bl t f war hi m alt hi . Da shasno co a t d t c tsnc a lte fcal e ma e o or d s i o m vi t nt c e he our i e e tr t t c ek' ofi ,r c i d i J nua y 201 M or over r or a ia e o i do not o he lr s lce e e ve n a r 6. e , ec ds val bl nlne Davis v. Raines et al Doc. 31 i i a et tDa shasbe ta f redt aVig ni De rme ofCoreci nsprs f ciiy. nd c t ha vi en r ns e r o r i a pa t nt r to ion a lt Bas d on t f r ng,t co tfndst tpli ifhasf l t pr e t t s a i e he o egoi he ur i ha antf aied o os cu e hi cton, pls a tt F d rlRul o Ci lPr c d r 41b) c r igy, h c u tds se t ea to t u n o e ea e f vi o e u e ( .Ac o dn l t e o r imis s h cin r wi u prj d c . S e Balr v Calo 8 F.d 9 ,9 (t Ci.1 8 ) (ttn p o K t t eu ie e lad . rs n,8 2 2 3 6 4h r 9 9 saig r ho Dockets.Justia.com ltg ns ae s b e tt tme r q ie n s a d rs e t f r c ur o d r a d ds sa i a ii a t r u j c o i e urme t n e p c o o t r e s n imis l s n a p o rae s n to f rn n c mpla e ;Do nel v.J hn - mwil Sae Cop. 6 7 F. p r p it a cin o o - o inc ) n l y o sM l ls r , 7 2d e 3 9,3 0 41 ( d Ci.1 8 ) (e og ii a d src o r ma S a S o t ds s a a to 3 4 - 3 r 9 2 rc n zng ititc u t y u p n e imis n cin pls a tt Fe . Ci P. ( ).I Da swih st p o e d wi t i a to , ma mo et t u n o d R. v. 41b ) f vi s e o r c e t h s cin he y v o r h r ope t c e wihi 30 da fo e f oft dimis lor r pr ded t the de onsr t e n he as t n ys r m nty he s s a de , ovi ha m taes good c e f li f it et upd t t c t t ac r ntadd e sasdie t d. aus or zs all o a e he our wih ur e r rs r ce TheCl r i diece t s nd co e oft sme or ndlm opi on a t ac ompa ng e k s r td o e pis hi m a z ni nd he c nyi or rt pli ifsproradd e sa t c ms lofr c d f def nda . de o antf i r s nd o ot e e or or e nt ENTER:Thi 1 d yo J y 2 6 s * a f ul, 01 . Chi fUnie Stt DititJ e t d a es src 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.