You are here

Opinions

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.

Lamont Van Harris v. United States of America 02/07/2007
2:04-cv-00780

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the petitioner’s Motion to Vacate, Set Aside or Correct Sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 [Docket 338].  This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).  The Magistrate Judge has submitted findings of fact and has recommended that the court grant the petitioner’s § 2255 motion. Neither party filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
David B. Evans and Jody M. Evans v. CDX Services, LLC and Joseph A. Zupanick 01/04/2007
5:06-cv-00259

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Remand [Docket 7] and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Defendant Joseph Zupanick [Docket 3].  For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED and Defendants’ motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
William J. Bradley v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart 12/05/2006
2:05-cv-00797

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are the parties’ briefs seeking judgment on the pleadings.  The plaintiff’s brief was filed December 27, 2005. The defendant’s brief was filed January 26, 2006. On August 29, 2006, the court received the proposed findings and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.  On September 8, 2006, the Commissioner objected.  On September 12, 2006, the court directed the plaintiff to respond to the Commissioner’s objections.  On September 15, 2006, plaintiff’s response was received.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Rakesh Wahi, M.D. v. Charelston Area Medical Center, et al. 09/29/2006
2:04-cv-00019

Order

Pending before the court are the defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment [Docket 75, Docket 79, and Docket 81].  After a thorough review of the pending motions and responses, the court FINDS for the defendants and GRANTS their summary judgment motions on all counts.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Virginia Lawson and William Lawson v. American General Assurance Company, et al. 09/12/2006
5:05-cv-01173

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Docket 6].  For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED.

Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
Mark J. Barnett v. Commtec/Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc. 07/20/2006
2:05-cv-00439

Memorandum Opinion and Order

In January 1997, the West Virginia Department of Education ("WVDE") issued an official Request for Proposal ("RFP") to solicit bids for a comprehensive computer system in state schools. The defendant, Commtec/Pomeroy Computer Resources, Inc. ("Pomeroy"), submitted the successful bid and entered into a contract ("the SUCCESS contract") with the WVDE on July 8, 1997.  The plaintiff, Mark J. Barnett, allegedly worked for Pomeroy on this contract as a cable installer.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Keeper of the Mountains Foundation v. United States Justice Department 07/14/2006
2:06-cv-00098

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Vaughn Index, filed May 2, 2006.  (Docket Sheet Document # 11.) Defendant, the United States Department of Justice, responded on May 19, 2006.  (# 15.)  The court conducted a telephonic hearing on June 12, 2006, which was attended by all the parties.

Author:
Mary E. Stanley
Raymond Goedeke v. Thomas McBride 07/13/2006
5:05-cv-00554

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Raymond Goedeke’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.  The matter initially was referred to the Honorable R. Clarke VanDervort, United States Magistrate Judge, to make findings and recommendations.  The Magistrate Judge recommended I dismiss Mr. Goedeke’s petition because it was untimely.  After reviewing objections filed by the petitioner, I determined that additional factfinding was necessary.  On March 28, 2006, I held an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Mr. Goedeke’s petition was timely. Upon consideration of the evidence adduced at the hearing and the post-hearing briefs, I FIND that the extraordinary circumstances of this case warrant equitably tolling of the applicable statute of limitations to allow Mr. Goedeke’s petition.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
In the Matter of the Complaint of B&H Towing, Inc., et al. 06/15/2006
6:05-cv-00233

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is a motion to enlarge the order restraining suit [Docket 482] and a motion for expedited consideration of the motion to enlarge the order restraining suit [Docket 551] filed by B & H Towing, Inc.; AEP MEMCO, LLC; American Electric Power Company, Inc.; and AEP Resources, Inc. (collectively referred to as "movants").  For the reasons stated herein, the court GRANTS the motion to expedite consideration and DENIES the motion to enlarge the order restraining suit.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Basil A. Chapman, et al. v. ACF Industries LLC, et al. 05/09/2006
3:04-cv-00062

Memorandum Opinion and Order Regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgement

Plaintiffs brought this action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).  Plaintiffs claim that Defendant ACF Industries LLC (ACF) violated the Act by changing one of the health insurance programs for its retirees.  Plaintiffs are members of the class of retirees, as certified by Order of this Court entered on March 25, 2005, covered by the Hospital and Physician Services Benefit Plan for Eligible Retired Employees and Dependents of ACF Industries, Inc. (H&P Plan).  Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, asserting Plaintiffs cannot establish a right to unchangeable, lifetime benefits under the applicable contractual provisions.  At issue are the collective bargaining agreements (also referred to as CBAs and Master Agreements) and related documents under which the H&P Plan for retirees was created and maintained for the past thirty years.  Upon review of these documents, and for the following reasons, the Court finds Defendants are entitled to summary judgment.

 

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages