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
This is an action seeking review of the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Claimant’s applications for disability insurance benefits (“DIB”) and supplemental security income (“SSI”), under Titles II and XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401-433, 1381-1383f. Both parties have consented in writing to a decision by the United States Magistrate Judge.
Order
Pending before the court is Defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Co. of America’s (“Travelers”) Motion to Dismiss Courts III and IV of Plaintiff Southern West Virginia Paving, Inc.’s (“SWVP”) Complaint [Docket 6]. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment [Docket 24]. By Order entered February 25, 2009, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (PF&R). Magistrate Judge VanDervort filed his PF&R on April 17, 2009 [Docket 31]. In that filing, the magistrate judge recommended that this Court deny Defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment. Objections to Magistrate Judge VanDervort’s PF&R were due by May 4, 2009, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Plaintiff timely filed objections on April 30, 2009.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Quash Insufficient Service of Process [Docket 4]. Plaintiff filed the instant complaint in the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West Virginia, on November 14, 2008, alleging breach of contract and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act. Defendant filed its Notice of Removal [Docket 1] in this Court on January 7, 2009, and filed its Motion to Quash Insufficient Service of Process [Docket 4] on February 12, 2009. To date, Plaintiff has not responded to the motion. Thus, the matter is now ripe for the Court’s consideration.
Amended Memorandum Opinion and Remand Order1
Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand [Docket 6] and Defendant’s Motion to Extend Time to Respond [Docket 8]. This case was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County, West Virginia, on May 22, 2008. Defendant removed the case to this Court on July 1, 2008, on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now allege that the amount-incontroversy requirement has not been met and seek a remand of the case back to the Circuit Court of Greenbrier County.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (docket # 67), to which the West Virginia State Police has responded in opposition (# 71), and Plaintiff has replied (# 78). This action concerns Plaintiff’s allegations that West Virginia State Troopers unlawfully beat him while he was restrained, and then attempted to cover up the beating. Plaintiff has brought causes of action for use of excessive force, unnecessary infliction of pain and suffering, failure to intervene, coercive questioning and conduct that shocks the conscience, conspiracy, common law assault and battery, infliction of emotional distress, failure to train, supervise and have adequate policies, and negligent supervision, hiring, training, discipline and retention. (Complaint, # 1.)
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending are motions to dismiss filed by defendant Secretary of the Department of Revenue James Robert Alsop (“Secretary”) and defendant Attorney General Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. (“Attorney General”), filed respectively on July 16 and 18, 2007. Pending also is the plaintiffs’ motion to submit a surreply, filed August 22, 2007, which is hereby ORDERED granted.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
This case involves several environmental groups’ challenge to the Army Corps of Engineers’ (“Corps”) decision to issue a nationwide permit, NWP 21, authorizing the discharge of dredged and fill material associated with surface coal mining activities, which includes mountaintop mining. Under this controversial method of mining, coal seams running through the upper fraction of a mountain, ridge, or hill are reached by blasting and removing each layer of rock above the seam. The mountain is demolished layer by layer as each layer of rock and coal is removed until the cost of proceeding exceeds the value of the remaining coal. During this process, the removed rock is placed in adjacent valleys and, once the coal is extracted, replaced in an attempt to recreate the contour of the mountain. See Bragg v. W. Va. Coal Assoc., 248 F.3d 275, 286 (4th Cir. 2001). This dirt and rock, called overburden or spoil, “swells” or increases in size by as much as 25%, creating excess material not needed to rebuild the mountain. Id. As Judge Haden explained, “[t]he overburden . . . is disposed of by creating valley fills, that is, literally, filling the valleys with waste rock and dirt.” Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, Inc. v. Rivenburgh (“Rivenburgh I”), 204 F. Supp. 2d 927, 92930 (S.D. W. Va. 2002). These valley fills permanently eliminate previously existing valley streams. In the past twenty years, thousands of miles of streams in Appalachia, constituting over 2% of the streams in the area, have been impacted by the discharges associated with mountaintop mining. Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement at III.D-2 (2003) (“DPEIS”). In West Virginia alone, over 200 miles of streams have been permanently lost. DPEIS at III.K-49.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before this Court are Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. 2) and Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 3). At this stage, Plaintiff has failed to make the showing necessary for preliminary relief. He has not shown that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that the balance of harms tips decidedly in his favor, or that the public interest compels the issuance of such an order. For these reasons, more fully explained below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motions.
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Pending before the Court are Plaintiff Pinnacle Mining Company, LLC’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket 8], Defendants Bluestone Coal Corporation (Bluestone), Bluestone Industries, Inc., and Double-Bonus Coal Company’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 16], and Defendants’ Request to Present Oral Argument [Docket 21]. The motions have been fully briefed and are ripe for the Court’s review.