Wilson v. Arthur

Opinion

INT HEU NITSETDA TDEISS TRCIOCUTR T FORTH E EASTEDRNI STRIVCITR GOINFI A RichmDoinvdi sion VINCEENLTL IWOITL SON, Plaintiff, v. CivNio3l.: 23c(vD4J2N0) BETAHR THUeRta,.l ., Defendants. MEMORANDUOMP INION PlaianV tiirffgi,in nmisaaut bem,ti htaitcset adin ordne quleesattvpoeer d o cifenoe rdm a paupTehrpeie sr.t sitnaeptnrutot vei des: Inn oe vesnhtaap l rli sonaec ri avbcirtl[ii ifnonogn r pmaau pietfrh piers i]s oner haosn3,o rm orper ioocrc aswihoiinlnsec, ar coerdr eattaieindnae ndfay c ility, brouagnah ctto irao pnp ieanac lo uorftt hU en iStteadtht aewtsa d si smoins sed thger outnhidaitstfrs i vomlaoluisco,ifr oa tuisoslt ,saa c tleau ipmow nh ircehl ief mabyeg rantuendlt,eh pseris s oinusen rdi emrm idnanegnoetfsr e ripohuyss ical injury. 28U .S§.1 C9.1 5P(lgai)nh.ta aisltff e tahsrtoe theea rc toiraop npsthe aahltas bv eede ins missed afrsi voolforo rfu aisl usrteaa c ttleoa S iemWe.i lvsA.or nt hNou3.r: ,2 3c(vD8J22N0 )2W,3L 2506a4*t26 (0 E,.V DaM..ar 1.4 2,0 2W3i)l;vs B.ou nr gNeos3.s: ,2 2c(vD6J6N2)W ,L 2023 2505a8*t65 (3 E,.V DaM..ar 1.4 2,0 2W3i)l;vs A.or nt Nhuo3r.:, 2 2c(vD6J20N02)2W ,3L 2507a5*t56 (4 E,.V DaM..a 1r.42 ,0 2W3i)l;vs U..oS n. PN.o3S.:, 2 2c(vD6J8N9)W ,L 2023 1997*02(6 E9.,VD aF..e 1b4.2, 0 2W3i)l;vs L.oi nn dNso3e.:y 2,3 (cDvJ82N30) 2W,3L 1997a0*t72 (0 E,.V DaF..e 1b4.2, 0 2P3l)a.i nticffosm pcdlurroaeneinosntst t u ggtehhaseitt s iinm midnanegnoetfsr e rpihoyusshi acrma.l Accordhiirnseg qltuypoe,r s otci fenoe rdpm aau pweirblieDls E NIETDha.ec twiiolnl beD ISMISWSIETDH OPURTE JUDICE. Plaintiff remains free to submit a new complaint with the full $402 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action. An appropriate Final Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion. Let the Clerk file a copy of the Memorandum Opinion electronically and send a copy to Plaintiff.

/s/ _ David J. Novak United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Dated: July 17. 2023

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division VINCENT ELLIOT WILSON, Plaintiff, Vv. Civil No. 3:23cv420 (DJN) BETH ARTHUR, ev. al., Defendants. ORDER (Dismissing Action Without Prejudice) In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum Opinion it is hereby ORDERED that ie Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED; 2. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; 3. If Plaintiff wishes to proceed with this action, he may submit a new complaint with the full $402 filing fee. The Court will process such a complaint as a new civil action; 4. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to enter a final appealable Judgment in a Civil Case in favor of Defendant as a separate entry on the docket; and, >. Plaintiff does not request, and the Court does not grant, leave to amend, rendering this order final and appealable. See Britt v. DeJoy, 45 F.4th 790, 796 (4th Cir. 2022) (holding that an order dismissing a case without leave to amend is final and appealable). Should Plaintiff desire to appeal, a written notice of appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of entry hereof. Failure to file a notice of appeal within that period may result in the loss of the right to appeal. Let the Clerk file a copy of the Order electronically and send a copy to Plaintiff. And it is SOQ ORDERED. /s/ David J. Novak \ United States District Judge Richmond, Virginia Dated: July 17, 2023