Memorandum Opinion
Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint for Declaratory Judgment [Docket 11]. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is GRANTED.
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.
5:06-cv-00952
Author:
Thomas E. Johnston
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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