Jordan v. Maples et al, No. 7:2018cv00594 - Document 21 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 7/12/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
. & Ev soFFlcEus DlsmcouR' ayqoaxja vA FILED IN THE UNITED STATESDISTRICT COURT FOR TH E W ESTERN D ISTRICT O F W RG IN IA R OA NO K E DIW SIO N JUL 12 2215 JULI e.DU BY; Ep ADAM JOE DAI,E JORDAN, Plaintiff, v. D.M APLES,ET AT-., Defendants. . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) cLE : v CASE NO.7:18CV00594 M EM ORANDUM OPINION By:GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge Adam Joe D ale Jordan,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,Gled this civilrights action pursuantto42 U.S.C.j1983.Thedefendantsfledamotionforsummaryjudgmenton June3, 2019. Thatsam e day,the courtm ailed a notice advising M r.Jordan thatthe courtwould give him 21 days to subm it any further counter-affdavits orkother relevant evidence contradicting, explaining or avoiding the defendants'evidence before rulinj on theirmotions. The notice w arned M r.Jordan: . ' lfPlaintiffdoesnotrespondtoDefendantls'lpleadingg),theCourtwillassume thatPlaintiffhas lostinterestin the case,and/orthatPlaintiffagreesw ith w hatthe Defendantls) statel 1 in their responsive pleadingl ). If Plaintiff wishes to ' . continue w ith the case,it is necessary that Plaintiff respond in an appropriate fashion. Plaintiffm ay w ish to respond w ith counter-affidavits orotheradditional evidence as outlined above. However. if Plaintiff does not file som e response within thetwenty-one (21)day period.the Courtmav dismissthe caseforfailure to prosecute. (Notice,ECFNo.18)(emphasisin original.) Sincemailingthenoticeto Mr.Jordan,thecourt has'received no further com m unication from him about this case, and the deadline for his Jordan v. Maples et al response to the defendants'm otion haspassed. A ccordingly,the courtconcludes that,pursuant Doc. 21 to Rule 4l(b)oftheFederalRulesofCivilProcedure,Mr.Jordan hasfailed toprosecutethis action.Seegen.Ballardv.Carlson,882F.2d93(4thCir.1989). Dockets.Justia.com H aving duly notified the parties thatM r.Jordan's failum to respond to the defendants' dispositive m otion would be interpreted asfailure to prosecute and would be cause for dism issal oftheactionwithoutprejudice,thecourtwilldismissthecaseaccordingly.A separateorderwill enterthisday. M r.Jordan is advised thatif he intends to proceed w ith this action,he m ustpetition the courtwithin 30 days ofthe entry ofthis orderfora reinstatem entofthisaction. A ny m otion for reinstatem ent should provide a specific explanation for M r. Jordan's failure to respond in a tim ely fashion to the defendants'dispositive m otion. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m em orandum opinion and accom panying orderto M r.Jordan and to counselofrecord forthe defendants. + Ex TsR: This d day ofJuly, 2018. SeniorU nited StatesD istrictJudge 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.
