Henderson v. Clark, No. 7:2019cv00258 - Document 27 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/8/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK'S OFHIGLIJ.S.DIS'ZCOURT AT RO. 2k).IOKE,VA F1LED . d2V 23 2218 IN ' fH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FO R TIIE W ESTERN DISTR ICT O F W R GN A ROANOKE DIW SION TERRANCE ROBERT HENDERSON, JULIX . D CASE NO.7:19CV00258 Plaintiff, V.. G M OR AND UM O PIM ON J.CLARK,c K , By: H on.G len E .Conrad . Senjor United States DistrictJudge Defendants. PlaintiffTerrance RobertHenderson,aVirginia inmateproceedingpro K ,filedthiscivil rightsactionpursuantto42U.S.C.j1983. *TheVirginiaDepartmentofCorrections($$VDOC'') and Karen Stapletbn filed am otion to dismisson September5,2019,and the otherdefendants hled an answer. On September6,2019,the courtmailed a notice advising M r.Henderson that the courtwould give llim 21 days.to submil any further coupter-afsdavits or other relevant evidence contradicting, explaining or avoiding the defendants' evidence before ruling on the m otion to dism iss. The notice w nrned M r.H enderson: IfPlaintiffdoesnotrespond to Defendotgs')pleadinglJ,theCourtwill%sume thatPlnintiffhaslostinterestin tlw case!and/orthatPlaintiffagrees with whatthe DefendantEsq statel J hz their respönslve pleadingg!. If Plaintiff wishes to continue with the case,it is necessary thatPlaintiffrespond ià an appropriate fasllion. Plaintiffm ay wish to respond with cotmter-afsdavitsorotheradditionsl evidence as outlined above. Rowever.ifPlaintiffdoesnot5le som e response Fithin thetwenty-one (21)dav period,the Courtm ay dismissthe case forfailure - - to prosecute. Notice,ECF No.23(emphasislnoriginal) Mr.Henderson tiled amofon fora!lextension of Henderson v. Clark time to respond to thedefendants'm otion,and thecourtgranted llim untilOctober25,2019,to Doc. 27 respond. Shlce issuing that order,the courthas received no G dher comm tm ication from M r. H enderson about this case, and the deadline for his response to the defendnnts' m otion has passed. Accordingly,thecourtconcludesthat,ptlrsllnnttoRule 41(b)oftheFederalRulesof Dockets.Justia.com C :Y; L RK CivilProcedure,M r.Henderson has failed to prosecute izis claim s againstthe V D OC and M s. Stapleton.SeeRen,Ballardv.Cadson,882F.2d93(4thCir.1989). H aving duly notitied the pu ies that * . H enderson's failure to respond to the defendants'dispositive motion would be intep reted asfailureto prosecute and would be cause . ' ' fordismissaloftheactionwithoutprejudice,thecourtwilldismissa11claimsagainsttheVDOC and M s.Stapleton. The case will go forward against the rem aining defendnnts,lmless the plnlniffnotinesthecourtthatheno longerwishesto proceed with hisclaim sagainstthem . separate orderw illenterthisday. The Clerk is directed to send copies ofthis memorandum opinion and accompanying ordertè M r.Henderson and to cotm selofrecord forthedefendants. EN 'I-ER: 'rhis q H day ofxovem ber, 2019. SeniorUzlited StétesDistrictJudge 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.
