Thompson v. Scarberry et al, No. 7:2020cv00453 - Document 88 (W.D. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Michael F. Urbanski on 9/30/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)

Download PDF
Thompson v. Scarberry et al Doc. 88 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION PAUL C. THOMPSON, JR., Plaintiff, v. P. SCARBERRY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 7:20-cv-00453 By: Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff Paul C. Thompson, Jr., a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 while he was incarcerated within the Virginia Department of Corrections. By order entered February 18, 2022, the court dismissed the action without prejudice for failure to comply with prior orders directing him to respond to dispositive motions filed by the defendants. ECF No. 77. After Thompson was released from incarceration, he filed a motion for reconsideration in which he argued that he had not received a copy of one of the prior orders. He also asserted that he had not received a copy of a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant J. Bledsoe. Consequently, on August 17, 2022, the court granted Thompson’s motion for reconsideration, reopened the case, and directed the Clerk to send Thompson another copy of Bledsoe’s motion for summary judgment. The court also directed Thompson to respond to the defendants’ dispositive motions within thirty days. The order expressly warned Thompson that “failure to comply with this order will result in the dismissal of the case without prejudice.” ECF No. 86 at 2. As of this date, Thompson has not responded to any of the dispositive motions filed by the defendants. He has not complied with the court’s order, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice. See Ballard v. Carlson, 882 F.2d Dockets.Justia.com 93, 95–96 (4th Cir. 1989) (recognizing that courts have the authority to order dismissal of an action for failure to comply with court orders, and finding that dismissal was appropriate where the pro se litigant disregarded a court order despite being warned that failure to comply would result in dismissal). An appropriate order will be entered. Entered: September 30, 2022 Digitally signed by Michael F. Urbanski Chief U.S. District Judge Date: 2022.09.30 12:23:47 -04'00' Michael F. Urbanski Chief United States District Judge 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.