Jenkins v. Woody et al
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 01/21/2017. (walk, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
VIRGINIA PAIGE JENKINS,
Administratrix ofEstate ofErin Jenkins,
Civil Action No. 3:15cv355
SHERIFF C.T. WOODY, et aL,
This matter comes before the Court on the following motions: (1) Defendant Sheriff C.T.
Woody's Motion for SummaryJudgment, (ECF No. 137); and, (2) Defendant Deputy Elizabeth
Beaver's Motion for Summary Judgment, (ECF No. 145). Sheriff Woody and Deputy Beaver
filed the motions for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 56.^
Plaintiff Virginia Paige Jenkins^ has responded to both motions for sunmiaiy judgment,
(ECF Nos. 165, 167,^ 180), and both SheriffWoody and Deputy Beaver have replied, (ECF Nos.
200, 201). The Court heard oral argument, and the matter is ripe for disposition. The Court
' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that "[t]he court shall grant summary
judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the
movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).
^Because the plaintiff inthis matter, Virginia Paige Jenkins, Administratrix ofthe Estate
of Erin Jenkins, has the same last name as Erin Jenkins, the subject of this case, the Court refers
to Virginia Paige Jenkins as "Plaintiff and Erin Jenkins as "Ms. Jenkins" throughoutthis
^Plaintiff initially filed her response to Sheriff Woody's Motion for Summary Judgment
at docket entry 165. Plaintiff filed a correctedversion at docket entry 167. Plaintiffs exhibits,
however, remain filed with docket entry 165.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?