From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Carr v. Hazelwood

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Nov 3, 2008
Case No. 7:07cv00001 (W.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2008)

Summary

explaining that the plaintiff "cannot now, as a matter of right, add a previously unmentioned affirmative defense in response to an amended complaint that in no way changes [plaintiff's] theory of the case"

Summary of this case from Childress v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

Opinion

Case No. 7:07cv00001.

November 3, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff Sheril A. Carr brings this suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Defendant Hank Hazelwood violated her constitutional rights by sexually assaulting her while she was housed at the Pittsylvania County Jail on April 16, 2006. Defendant moved for summary judgment and the court referred the matter to United States Magistrate Judge Michael F. Urbanski for a report and recommendation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge subsequently filed a report, finding that Defendant waived the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust, that Carr did, in fact, exhaust her available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a), and that the Court should deny Defendant's motion for summary judgment. Defendant filed objections within the ten days allotted under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Plaintiff filed a timely response to Defendant's objections pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b). Having reviewed the report and recommendation, the objections and responses thereto, and pertinent portions of the record de novo in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(3), the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's objections are OVERRULED, the Magistrate Judge's report and recommendation is ADOPTED in its entirety, and the Defendant's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record as well as to Magistrate Judge Urbanski.


Summaries of

Carr v. Hazelwood

United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
Nov 3, 2008
Case No. 7:07cv00001 (W.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2008)

explaining that the plaintiff "cannot now, as a matter of right, add a previously unmentioned affirmative defense in response to an amended complaint that in no way changes [plaintiff's] theory of the case"

Summary of this case from Childress v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Company

In Carr, an unpublished opinion by the magistrate judge, the court found that defendants waived the affirmative defense of failure to exhaust when they failed to raise it in their answer to the original complaint and their first motion for summary judgment, though they did raise it in their answer to the amended complaint. The court further found that even if the defense had been timely filed, the plaintiff did exhaust her available administrative remedies.

Summary of this case from Short v. Walls
Case details for

Carr v. Hazelwood

Case Details

Full title:SHERIL A. CARR, Plaintiff, v. HANK HAZELWOOD, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division

Date published: Nov 3, 2008

Citations

Case No. 7:07cv00001 (W.D. Va. Nov. 3, 2008)

Citing Cases

Short v. Walls

See Phipps v. Sheriff of Cook County, ___ F.Supp.2d ___, 2009 WL 4146391, *3 (N.D. Ill. 2009) (finding the…

Walker-Riley v. Denson

The court finds that it is necessary to award an amount less than the McLaughlin court because the acts…