Saunders v. Hash et al, No. 7:2022cv00219 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 5/26/2022. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Saunders v. Hash et al Doc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION DAVAYON JERRELL SAUNDERS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:22cv00219 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) SHERIFF ANTONIO HASH, et al., ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Davayon Jerrell Saunders, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2022, the court ordered Saunders to show cause, within seven days, why this case should not be dismissed as duplicative of the claims raised in Civil Action No. 7:22cv71. (See ECF No. 7.) The court warned Saunders that failure to respond to the court’s order would “result in dismissal of this action without prejudice.” (Id.) The court also advised Saunders that if he intends to proceed in only one case (Civil Action No. 7:22cv71), he could so notify the court or wait for his response time to expire. (Id.) Saunders did not respond to the court’s order and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice. 1 The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and accompanying Order to Saunders. ENTERED this 26th day of May, 2022. /s/ Thomas T. Cullen_________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On May 13, 2022, the court received an unsigned request from Saunders, asking the court to send summonses to the defendants. (See ECF No. 13.) The court notes that the filing is not responsive to the court’s May 10 order and, in fact, was dated May 8 and mailed to the court on May 9, the day before the court’s order was entered. (Id.) 1 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.
