Simmons, Jr. v. Whitaker et al

Filing 136

MEMORANDUM OPINION (See Memorandum Opinion for further details). Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 01/25/2022. (lber c/s)

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID# 747

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

Johnnie R. Simmons,Jr.,
Plaintiff,

I:20cv464(TSE/MSN)

v.

R. Whitaker, et al..
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Johnnie R. Simmons, Jr.("Plaintiff' or "Simmons"), a former' Virginia inmate

proceeding pro

filed a civil-rights suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his rights were

violated while detained at the Hampton Roads Regional Jail("HRRJ")on February 8,2019
when he was choked into unconsciousness by defendants R. Whitaker^ and Derrick Brown.[Dkt.
No. 1 at 4, 9]. Plaintiff also names Benjamin Hull, and Superintendent C. Waltz as defendants in
relation to the February 8, 2019 incident. On July 13, 2021, Defendants Brown and Hull each

filed a motion for summary judgment with supporting exhibits and affidavits. [Dkt. No. 32-34,
97-99]. Plaintiff received the notice required by Local Rule 7(K) and Roseboro v. Garrison. 528

F.2d 309(4th Cir. 1975)[Dkt. Nos. 33, 98], and he has responded.[Dkt. Nos. 103, 110].
Defendant Waltz has filed a motion to dismiss.[Dkt. No. 130]. Plaintiff received the notice

required by Local Rule 7(K)and Roseboro [Dkt. No. 132], but he has not responded. Thus, the

'Simmons was released from custody on May II, 2021.[Dkt. No. 60].

^ Defendant Whitaker has not been served. The Court listed the efforts that have been made to perfect service on
defendant Whitaker in its Order dated December 15,2021 Order [Dkt. No. 134], and then directed plaintiff to
provide an address for service within twenty-one days ofthe date of that order or show cause within the same

twenty-one days"why this civil action should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4{m) with respect to
defendant Whitaker." [Id. at 2]. Despite Plaintiff having been out of custody for approximately eight months, he has
not perfected service on defendant Whitaker. Further, in response to the December 15,2021 Order, Plaintiff has
neither provided an address nor shown cause why Whitaker should not be dismissed. Accordingly, defendant
Whitaker will be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID# 748

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID# 749

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID# 750

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID# 751

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID# 752

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID# 753

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID# 754

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID# 755

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID# 756

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID# 757

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID# 758

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID# 759

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID# 760

Case 1:20-cv-00464-TSE-IDD Document 136 Filed 01/25/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID# 761