Martin v. Hamilton

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: January 31, 2025
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00807
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

ULENN SO UPPICE □□□□□ □□□□□ □□ AT ROANOKE, VA FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1/31/2025 FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK ROANOKE DIVISION BY: s/A. Beeson DEPUTY CLERK KENDAL MARTIN, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No. 7:23cv00807 ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) ISRAEL HAMILTON, et al., ) By: Robert S. Ballou Defendants. ) United States District Judge Kendal Martin, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this suit against the defendants, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging excessive, unreasonable, and humiliating strip searches in violation of the Fourth and Eighth Amendments. On August 23, 2024, defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under FED. R. CIv. P. 56. Shortly thereafter, the court issued to plaintiff the notice required by Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 1975). The Roseboro notice advised Martin that he had 21 days to respond to the Motion for Summary Judgment, and that if he did not respond, the court would “‘assume that Plaintiff has lost interest in the case, and/or that Plaintiff agrees with what the Defendant(s] state in their responsive pleading(s).” ECF No. 19. The notice further advised Martin that, if he wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that Plaintiff respond in an appropriate fashion” and that, if he failed to file a response within the time allotted, the court “may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.” Jd. The defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment has been pending for over four months, and Martin has not filed any response. Therefore, the court will dismiss Martin’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute. An appropriate order will be entered. Enter: January 31, 2025 lol Kobed Ss. Ballon Robert S. Ballou United States District Judge