Henderson v. Anderson et al, No. 7:2019cv00421 - Document 17 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/8/2019. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERKS OFFICE U.S.DISX COURT AT ROANOKE,VA FILED 82V 2s 2219 IN TI' lE UNITED STATESPISTRICT COURT FO R TI' 1E W ESTERN DISTRICT O F W R G IN IA RO AN OK E DIW SIO N TERR AN CE R OBER T H END ERSON , Plaintiff, V. M AJOR ANDERSON,K' 12AL., D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) JULI BY: CASE N O .7:19CV 00421 EY cL RK . M EM ORANDUM OPU ION By:Hon.GlenE.Conrad SeniorUnitedStatesDkstrictJudge PlnintiffTerrance RobertH enderson,a Virginia inm ate proceeding pro K ,filed this civil rightsactionpursuatltto 42 U.S.C.j1983.Thedefendmztshavefiled amotionto dismiss.On Septem ber 6,20l9,the courtm ailed a notice advising M r.Henderson that the courtw ould give him 21 days to subm it mly furthpr counter-afsdavits or other relevant evidence contradicting, . . ' explnining or avoiding the defendants' evidence before ruling on the m otion to dism iss. The notice wnrned M r.Henderson: IfPlaintiffdoesnotrespond to Defendantls'qpleadingg),the Courtwillassllme thatPlaintiffhas lostinterestin the case:and/orthatPlaintiff agreeswith whatthe Defendantlsj sttel j in their responslve pleadingl j. If'Plaintiff wishes to continuew1t11thecase,itisnecessarythatPlaintiffrespond in an apiropriate fashion.'Plaintif may wish torespondw1114counter-ao davitsorotheradditional eyidence as outlined abové. However.ifPlaintiff does notfile some resnonse withinthetwenty-one(21)davneriod.theCourtmaydisdisstlkecaseforfailtle to prosecute. Notice,ECF No.13 (emphasisin original,) M r.Henderson filed amotion foran extension of timeto respond to the defendants'motion,and thecourtgranted llim untilOctober25,2019,to Henderson v. Anderson et al respond. Since issuing that order,the courthas received no further com m lm l 'cation from M r. Doc. 17 H enderson about this case, and the deadline for his response to the defendants' m otion has passed. Accordingly,the courtconcludesthat,ptlrsuanttoRule 41(b)oftheFederalRulesof Dockets.Justia.com l . CivilProcedc e,M r.H enderson hasfailed to prosecute this action. See gen.Ballard v.Carlson, 882F.2d93(4thCir.1989). Having duly notiEed the pndies that M z. Henderson's failure to respond to the defendants'disposiive motion would beinterm eted asfailure to prosecute and would be cause fordismissaloftheaction withoutprejud.ice,thecourtwilldismissthe caseaccordingly. A separate orderwillenterthis day. . ' M r.Henderson Isadvisedthatif'l1ùintendstoproceed with thisaction,he mustpetition the courtwithin 30 ofthe entry oftllis orderfor areinstatementofthisaction. Any motion for reinstatem ent should provide a specifc explanation forM z.H enderson's failm e to respond in a timely fashion to thedefendants'dispositivemotion. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m em orandllm opinion ahd accompanying orderto * .Henderson and to counselofrecord forthe defendants. EN TER: This .day ofN ovem ber,2019. > SeniorUnited StatesDisG ctJudge 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.
