The Southern District of West Virginia offers a database of opinions starting in the year 2001, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search to the right or sort using the drop-downs below.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Pending is Defendants S.C. Adkins,1 City of South Charleston, A. Davis, Andrew Ferrebee, and Jacob Poland’s (collectively, the “South Charleston Defendants”), Motion to Dismiss. [ECF No. 12].2 Plaintiffs responded in opposition, [ECF No. 22], to which the South Charleston Defendants replied, [ECF No. 23]. The matter is ripe for adjudication.
Order
Pending is Defendants Christal G. Perry and Mark Hunt’s Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment, [ECF No. 33]. Plaintiff Tamara D. Amick did not respond.1 The matter is ripe for adjudication.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
On February 5, 2026, this court held a show cause hearing and granted Petitioners’ Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, [ECF Nos. 29, 30]. In that Order the court “DIRECTED [Respondents] to return all seized personal items of the Petitioners.” [ECF No. 30, at 2]. On March 20, 2026, Petitioners filed a motion to enforce the court’s order, hold Respondents in civil contempt, and impose sanctions, [ECF No. 35], because not all of the Petitioners’ property has been returned.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Defendant Cornerstone Building Brand Services, Inc.'s ("Cornerstone") Motion to Dismiss or Alternatively to Transfer Venue. [ECF No. 8]. Plaintiff Maria Barnhart filed a response, [ECF No. 16], to which Cornerstone replied, [ECF No. 17]. For the reasons below, the Motion, [ECF No. 8], is DENIED.
Order
In 2019, Plaintiffs, a class of children in West Virginia state foster care custody, filed their class action complaint. [ECF No. 1]. They allege that Defendants, state executives, violated constitutional and statutory rights by the state’s policies and practices regarding foster care. Id. The Plaintiffs’ depiction of the foster care system is bleak, dysfunctional, underfunded, and in violation of the United States Constitution and West Virginia law. Id.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Pending are Defendants Wright Concrete & Construction, Inc. ("Wright Concrete") and Wright-Mix Materials Solutions, LLC's ("Wright-Mix") (together the "Mix/Concrete Defendants") Motions to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, [ECF Nos. 41, 43]. Plaintiff United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("the EEOC" or "the Commission") responded in opposition to Wright-Mix's motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 45], to which Wright-Mix replied, [ECF No. 54]. The EEOC thereafter moved to strike Wright-Mix's Reply in Support of Its Motion to Dismiss as untimely. [ECF No. 57]. The EEOC further responded in opposition to Wright Concrete's motion to dismiss, [ECF No. 53], to which Wright Concrete replied, [ECF No. 59].
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Pending are Defendant Daemien Thompson's objections to the Presentence Investigation Report ("PSR"). Mr. Thompson objects to paragraph 46, asserting the career offender enhancement is inapplicable. He further objects to paragraphs 9, 24–26, 28–30, 35, and 37–40, challenging certain drug weight attributed to him by co-defendant John Gray. Mr. Thompson contests the reliability of Mr. Gray's statements to law enforcement as "false," "inconsistent," and "unreliable." [ECF 402; see also ECF 407 at 2–6; ECF 435]. The matter is ready for adjudication.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
Pending are Defendant Emmanuel Covington’s objections to the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”). Mr. Covington objects to the PSR’s computation of his criminal history points in Paragraphs 43, 44, 45, and 46 of the Presentence Investigation Report (“PSR”) inasmuch as he urges he should receive six total criminal history points rather than eight. Additionally, Mr. Covington objects to the resulting criminal history category of IV reflected in Paragraphs 77 and 118 inasmuch as he urges his criminal history category should be calculated as III rather than IV based upon six rather than eight criminal history points.
Memorandum Opinion And Order
On May 7, 2026, the court held a sentencing hearing for Defendant Cornell Cordon. At the hearing, the parties presented opposing arguments regarding the appropriate base offense level for the calculation of Defendant’s advisory Guidelines range. For the reasons that follow, I find that Defendant’s prior criminal conviction establishes him as a Tier III sex offender under the advisory Guidelines.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reopen Civil Action, [ECF 1357], and Motion to Enforce Settlement, [ECF 1359], both filed July 25, 2025, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Reconsider, [ECF 1365], filed August 11, 2025. The motions were filed by a discrete subset of the Plaintiffs in the style, namely, Bryan Stafford, on behalf of the estate of Thomas Fleenor, Jr., Jonathan Crabtree, and Gary Toler (“Plaintiffs”).1 The matters are ready for adjudication.