Roderick Charles Young

“Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED. This matter be REMANDED pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. 405(g) for further administrative proceedings ...”

“Plaintiff's 9 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Defendant's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The final decision of the Commissioner is REVERSED.”

“For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion, the Court AFFIRMS the decisions of the Bankruptcy Court, in full. It is so ORDERED.”

“The Court hereby ORDERS that the Clerk TRANSFER this matter to the District Court for the Northern District of Florida.”

Young dismissed a Title VII employment-discrimination action without prejudice sua sponte for failure to prosecute after a show-cause order. The defendants had never answered, and the plaintiff took no action to advance the case. The disposition is grounded in the verbatim docket-entry order text and illustrates active docket management.

A pro se plaintiff sought to initiate an independent Rule 60(d)(1) action to vacate a 2018 dismissal in an earlier employment-related case, alleging fraud on the court. On frivolity review of the accompanying in forma pauperis application, the court granted IFP status but dismissed the action with prejudice, finding the fraud-on-the-court and grave-miscarriage-of-justice standards unmet and any amendment futile.

“The Court will grant the Motion to Transfer but will deny it as to the proffered transferee location... the Court will direct the Clerk to transfer this civil action to the Alexandria Division of the Eastern District of Virginia and shall recommend that the same judge be assigned both this action and the Norfolk Action.”

“The Court disagrees with Plaintiff's hyper-technical argument. The motions were essentially filed simultaneously and, as such, Defendants have not waived their venue argument. Thus, the Court will deny Plaintiff's Motion to Strike.”

“For the reasons detailed above, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (ECF No. 23) and grant in part and deny in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (ECF No. 18).”

“Accordingly, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”

“Accordingly, based only on the facts alleged by Plaintiff and the documents attached to the Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged facts that, taken in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' Accordingly, the Court denies Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as to Count I.”

“Because the source of duty and economic loss rules preclude Plaintiff's negligence claim, the Court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and dismisses with prejudice Count II.”

“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim under Title VII and amendment would be futile. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 3) will therefore be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed with prejudice.”

“For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiff has failed to state any claim upon which relief may be granted. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 6) will therefore be granted, and this civil action will be dismissed with prejudice.”

“Because venue properly lies in the Newport News Division of the Eastern District of Virginia under the second prong of Section 1391(b), and because there is no basis for venue in the Richmond Division, the Court will exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1406 and transfer the case to the Newport News Division.”