Saunders v. Burns et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. See Opinion for details. Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 7/26/2017. (sbea, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division MICHAEL J.G. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, V. Civil Action No. 3:16cv322 CRAIG M. BURNS, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Wendy S. Hughes's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim' (the "Hughes Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 9), and Defendant Craig M. Bums's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim^ (the "Bums Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 15), and Plaintiff Michael J.G. Saunders's Motion for Status Conference, (ECF No. 20). Saunders, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has responded to both motions (ECF Nos. 12, 19), and both Defendants have replied, (ECF Nos. 13, 19). No defendant has responded to Saunders's Motion for Status Conference, and the time to do so has expired. The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the matter is ripe for disposition. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the Hughes Motion to Dismiss and the Bums Motion to Dismiss and deny as moot Saunders's Motion for a Status Conference. The Court will dismiss the Complaint without prejudice. ' Hughes provided Saunders with appropriate notice pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). {See ECF No. 11.) ^Bums provided Saunders with appropriate notice pursuant to Roseboro, 528 F.2d at 310. (5eeECFNo. 15.)

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?