Cooper v. Barr

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA ROANOKE DIVISION ISRAEL RAY COOPER, ) ) Civil Action No. 7:22cv00737 Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) MEMORANDUM OPINION ) C/O BARR, et al., ) By: Hon. Thomas T. Cullen ) United States District Judge Defendants. ) ________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiff Israel Ray Cooper, proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 26 and November 21, 2023, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, and on October 27 and December 1, 2023, the court issued notices pursuant to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4th Cir. 2005). (See ECF Nos. 44, 48, 50 & 51.) The Roseboro notices advised Cooper that she had 21 days to file a response to the motions to dismiss, and informed her that, if she did not respond to the defendants’ motions, the court would “assume that [she] has lost interest in the case, and/or that [she] agrees with what the Defendant[s] state[] in their responsive pleading(s).” (See ECF Nos. 48 & 51.) The notices further advised Cooper that, if she wished to continue with the case, it was “necessary that [she] respond in an appropriate fashion,” and that if she failed to file a response to the motions within the time allotted, the court “may dismiss the case for failure to prosecute.” (Id.) To date, Cooper has not responded to the defendants’ motions and, therefore, the court will dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute.1 Cooper also named “Unknown Officers” and “Unknown Officials” as defendants. (See ECF No. 33.) By order entered September 28, 2023, the court directed Cooper to provide additional information to aid in the The Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum Opinion and the accompanying Order to the parties.

ENTERED this 2nd day of February, 2024.

/s/ Thomas T. Cullen________________ HON. THOMAS T. CULLEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE identification of the defendants. (ECF No. 42.) The court warned that failure to timely provide the information would result in dismissal of those defendants from the action without prejudice. Cooper did not respond to the court’s order and, therefore, these defendants are also dismissed from the action.