Saub v. Western Tidewater Regional Jail et al
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr on 07/30/2018. Copy mailed to plaintiff.(tjoh, )
j"~r~¥
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
| JUL 0 ? o
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
''
I CLERioIsrDisfRicf^
Richmond, va
ERIC B. SAUB,
Plaintiff,
V.
Civil Action No. 3:17CV617
WESTERN TIDEWATER REGIONAL JAIL,et aL,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this action. By Memorandum Order
entered on March 2, 2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to submit a particularized complaint
within fourteen (14) days of the date of entry thereof. Thereafter, the Court granted Plaintiff two
extensions of time. (EOF Nos. 12, 15.) Specifically, by Memorandum Order entered on May 8,
2018, the Court directed Plaintiff to file his particularized complaint within thirty (30) days of
the date of entry thereof. (EOF No. 15.)
More than thirty (30) days elapsed after the entry of the May 8, 2018 Memorandum Oder
and the Court failed to receive a particularized complaint from Plaintiff. Accordingly, by
Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 12, 2018, the Court dismissed the action
without prejudice. (ECFNo. 16, 17.)
On Jime 21, 2018, the Court received a Motion to Reopen Case from Plaintiff("Motion
to Reopen," ECF No. 18.) In the Motion to Reopen, Plaintiff swears that he timely mailed a
copy of his Particularized Complaint to the Court. Plaintiff attaches a copy of the Particularized
Complaint (ECF No. 18-3.) Given these circumstances, the Motion to Reopen (ECF No. 18)
will be GRANTED. The June 12, 2018 Memorandum Opinion and Order will be VACATED
and the Court will continue to process the action. Plaintiffs Rule 60(b) Motion to Reopen(EOF
No. 19) will be DENIED AS MOOT.
An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.
Date:
Richmond, Virginia
John A. Gibney, Jr.
United States Districttl tige
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?