Want v. Frei et al

Filing 66

MEMORANDUM OPINION re Motion for summary judgment. Signed by District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema on 1/23/17. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff by chambers.(klau, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Alexandria Division

JEROME WANT,

Plaintiff,

l:16-cv-660(LMB/IDD)

V.

STEVEN MARK FREI, et aL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION

PlaintiffJerome Want ("plaintiff" or "Want"), gro se, has filed a six-count complaint

alleging malpractice^ and firaud byhis former attorney Steven Mark Frei ("Frei"), and Frei's law
firm Sickles, Frei & Mims, P.C., (collectively with Frei, "defendants"), arising out of Frei's

representation of Want in a personal injury action filed in the Arlington County Circuit Court.
Plaintiff seeks damages of at least $2.59 million plus prejudgment interest at a rate of 12%.

Compl.

16-23. Defendants have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("Motion"), to which

plaintiffhas filed a response.^ The Court finds that oral argument would not aid the decisional
process. For the reasons that follow, defendants' motion will be granted.

^Want divides his malpractice claim among five counts: Count 1(Failure to Provide a Minimum
Standard of Care); Count 2 (Malpractice); Count 4 (Breach of Contract); Count 5 (NonFeasance); and Count 6 (Malfeasance). Compl.
16-17; 20-22.

^Although defendants served plaintiff with a Roseboro notice along with their motion, advising
him that he must "identify all facts stated by Defendants with which [he] disagree[s] and set forth
[his] version of the facts by offering affidavits (written statements signed before a notary public
and imder oath) or by filing sworn statements (bearing a certificate that is signed under penalty
ofpeijury)," plaintiffs response consists solely of argument, failing to cite any evidence in the
record, see generally PI. 0pp. [Dkt. 64]. Moreover, those arguments have not been submitted
imder penalty of peijury. See id.