Wall v. Engelke et al, No. 7:2021cv00052 - Document 38 (W.D. Va. 2022)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 10/5/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(tvt)

Download PDF
Wall v. Engelke et al Case 7:21-cv-00052-TTC-RSB Document 38 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 258 Doc. 38 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION GARY WALL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:21cv00052 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) MARK E. ENGELKE, et al., ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Gary Wall, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 6, 2022, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and on September 7, 2022, the court issued a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2005). (See ECF Nos. 34−36.) The Roseboro notice gave Wall 21 days to file a response to the motion for summary judgment and advised him that, if he did not respond to the defendants’ motion, the court would “assume that Plaintiff has lost interest in the case, and/or that Plaintiff agrees with what the Defendant states in their responsive pleading(s).” (See ECF No. 36.) The notice further advised Wall that, if he wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that Plaintiff respond in an appropriate fashion,” and that if he failed to file a response to the motion within the time allotted, the court “may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) Wall did not respond to the defendants’ motion and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. The clerk is directed to send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to Wall. ENTERED this 5th day of October, 2022. /s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Dockets.Justia.com

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.