Huffman v. Large et al

Filing 29

OPINION AND ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT Prejudice. Signed by Senior Judge James P. Jones on 3/6/2025. (Opinion and Order mailed to Pro Se Party/Parties via US Mail)(jv)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ROANOKE DIVISION
JULLIAN A. HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
NURSE PRACITIONER
CRYSTAL LARGE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

JULLIAN A. HUFFMAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
JILL PEARCE, ET AL.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

March 06, 2025

LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK
BY: s/J.Vasquez

Case No. 7:24CV00493

Case No. 7:24CV00595
OPINION AND ORDER
JUDGE JAMES P. JONES

Jullian A. Huffman, Pro Se Plaintiff; and Taylor D. Brewer, MORAN REEVES
CONN, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendants.
The plaintiff, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed these two civil rights
action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights by denying him treatment for gender dysphoria. By Order
entered January 14, 2025, the Court consolidated the cases, with No. 7:25CV00493
as the lead case for future filings. Thereafter, the defendants filed a Motion to

Dismiss both cases. The Court mailed a Notice advising Huffman that before ruling
on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court would give him twenty-one days to submit any
further counter-affidavits or other relevant evidence contradicting, explaining or
avoiding the defendants’ argument and/or evidence. The Notice warned Huffman
that if he did not respond to the motion, the Court would assume that he had lost
interest in the cases or that he agrees with the defendants’ arguments for dismissal.
The Notice advised Huffman that if he wished to continue with the case, it was
“necessary that [he] respond in an appropriate fashion,” or the Court might “dismiss
the case for failure to prosecute.” Notice, ECF No. 28.
The record reflects that Huffman’s response to the defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss was due to be filed on or before February 28, 2025. That deadline has come
and gone, with no response or other communication from Huffman. Therefore, I
conclude that dismissal of the action, the consequence of which the court’s Notice
warned Huffman, is warranted. For the reasons stated, it is hereby ORDERED that
these consolidated actions are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, based on the
plaintiff’s failure to prosecute, by failing to respond to the defendants’ dispositive
motion by the deadline imposed by the court; and the Clerk shall close the case.
ENTER: March 6, 2025
/s/ JAMES P. JONES
Senior United States District Judge

-2-