From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Saunders v. Mannis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Apr 26, 2018
Civil Action No. 7:18cv00045 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2018)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 7:18cv00045

04-26-2018

JAMAL KEMO SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. CARL A. MANNIS, et al., Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

By order entered March 23, 2018, the court advised Saunders that the Office of the Attorney General was unable to waive service for defendant Julie Abbate and directed him to provide the court with an address where the defendant could be served. The court warned Saunders that failure to comply with the court's order within ten days would result in dismissal of his complaint against Abbate without prejudice. Saunders did not respond to the court's order. Inasmuch as the time to respond has passed and Saunders has failed to comply with the court's order, I will dismiss Saunders' complaint against Abbate without prejudice. I note that the action remains pending against the other defendants.

ENTER: This 26th day of April, 2018.

/s/_________

NORMAN K. MOON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Saunders v. Mannis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION
Apr 26, 2018
Civil Action No. 7:18cv00045 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2018)
Case details for

Saunders v. Mannis

Case Details

Full title:JAMAL KEMO SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. CARL A. MANNIS, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 26, 2018

Citations

Civil Action No. 7:18cv00045 (W.D. Va. Apr. 26, 2018)

Citing Cases

People v. Uber Techs.

Lyft asserts that in 2018, the PUC held that Uber was subject to regulation as a transportation charter party…