WOODHOUSE v. RAY, 7:11CV00462. (2012)
Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
Number: infdco20120622e89
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 21, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 21, 2012
Summary: FINAL ORDER JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge. In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ADJUDGED AND ORDERED as follows; 1. Defendant's objection to plaintiff's requests for production is SUSTAINED; defendant is not required to produce the requested documents; and defendant's motion for protective order (ECF No. 35) is DISMISSED as moot; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF
Summary: FINAL ORDER JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge. In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ADJUDGED AND ORDERED as follows; 1. Defendant's objection to plaintiff's requests for production is SUSTAINED; defendant is not required to produce the requested documents; and defendant's motion for protective order (ECF No. 35) is DISMISSED as moot; 2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF N..
More
FINAL ORDER
JAMES C. TURK, Senior District Judge.
In accordance with the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby
ADJUDGED AND ORDERED
as follows;
1. Defendant's objection to plaintiff's requests for production is SUSTAINED; defendant is not required to produce the requested documents; and defendant's motion for protective order (ECF No. 35) is DISMISSED as moot;
2. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is GRANTED, and plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) is DENIED, as to plaintiff's claims under the Eighth Amendment;
3. To the extent that plaintiff's complaint raises due process and state law claims, such claims are DISMISSED without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b) and 1367(c); and
4. This action is stricken from the active docket of the court.
Source: Leagle
