Hawkins v. Lambert et al, No. 7:2021cv00309 - Document 25 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 9/27/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(aab)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hawkins v. Lambert et al Case 7:21-cv-00309-TTC-RSB Document 25 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 1 Pageid#: 188 Doc. 25 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ANTONIO HAWKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:21cv00309 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) LT. LAMBERT, et al., ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Antonio Hawkins, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 17, 2022, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, and, on August 18, 2022, the court issued a notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2005). (See ECF Nos. 23 & 24.) The Roseboro notice gave Hawkins 21 days to file a response to the motion for summary judgment and advised him that, if he did not respond to the defendant’s 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. 23.) The notice further advised Hawkins that, if he wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that [he] 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.) Hawkins did not respond to the defendants’ motion and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. ENTERED this 27th day of September, 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.
