CLERK'S OFFICE U.S. DIST. COL IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT AT HARRISONBURG. VA FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA October 31, 2025 ROAN OKE DIVISION LAURA A. AUSTIN, □□□□□ BY: S/J.Vasquez ROMAN SEBASTIAN MONZON, ) DEPUTY CLERK ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:25CV 10013 ) ) OPINION ) TIKKI HICKS, ET AL., ) JUDGE JAMES P. JONES ) Defendants. ) ) Roman Sebastian Monzon, Pro Se Plaintiff; Mitchell E. Sanders, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL JUSTICE & PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION, Richmond, Virginia, for Defendant Hicks. The plaintiff, proceeding without an attorney, filed this civil rights action under

, alleging that defendant Tikki Hicks, the Warden of Pocahontas State Correctional Center, violated Monzon’s First Amendment rights by allowing the prison mailroom staff she supervised to censor an electronic message the plaintiff sent to an inmate by removing an innocuous attached image. Hicks has filed a Motion to Dismiss, asserting that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), on the basis that no facts are alleged that impose any direct responsibility under § 1983 upon Hicks. The court issued a Notice on August 18, 2025, notifying Monzon of his opportunity to respond to the defendant’s motion. That Order also warned Monzon that failure to file a timely response would result in dismissal of the case without

prejudice. Monzon had until September 18, 2025, to respond to the defendant’s motion. He failed to do so. The court also issued a notice indicating that if Monzon

failed to identify the four John Doe defendants listed in his Complaint, all claims against them would be dismissed without prejudice. The time allotted for Monzon to respond to Hicks’ motion has passed, and he

has failed to file a timely response to that motion or to ask for additional response time. Accordingly, I will assume that he has lost interest in the case or agrees with Hicks’ arguments. Therefore, I will dismiss his claims against Hicks and her pending motion without prejudice. Ballard v. Carlson,

, 95 (4th Cir.

1989). I will also dismiss without prejudice all claims against the four John Doe defendants, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. An appropriate Final Order will issue herewith.

ENTER: October 31, 2025 /s/ JAMES P. JONES Senior United States District Judge