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.

Raymond Junior Hawkins v. Howard Painter 04/04/2001
5:98-cv-00997

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This matter comes once again before the Court on review of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.  Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.   By order dated September 29, 1999, this Court reviewed the objections to Magistrate Judge Feinberg's Findings and Recommendations which recommended to this Court that this case be remanded to the state court for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing.  Noting that the Court lacked authority to remand to the state court, this Court referred the case back to the Magistrate for further proceedings.  The Magistrate appointed the Federal Public Defender's Office to represent the petitioner.  Petitioner's newly appointed counsel reviewed the pro se petition and narrowed the issues presented.  Thereafter, the Magistrate held a two day evidentiary hearing on the issues raised in the petition.  After the hearing, Judge Feinberg submitted her Findings and Recommendations on September 29, 2000.  Thereafter, on October 13, 2000, Petitioner submitted objections to the Findings and Recommendations.  Upon de novo review of the petitioner's objections and the entire record, the Court ACCEPTS in part and REJECTS in part the Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, but nevertheless DENIES Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus for the reasons that follow.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Ohio River Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. Michael C. Callaghan, et al. 03/09/2001
3:00-cv-00058

Memorandum Opinion Concerning the Preliminary Injunction

This matter is before the Court upon a motion by Plaintiffs Ohio River Valley Coalition and the Citizens Coal Council for a preliminary injunction.  After holding a five-day hearing on the matter, the Court DENIES the preliminary injunction sought by Plaintiffs for the following reasons.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
State of West Virginia v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al. 03/07/2001
2:98-cv-01150

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction and the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. The plaintiff filed this suit against the United States Department of Health and Human Services ("DHHS"), its then-Secretary, Donna Shalala and then Administrator of the Heath Care Financing Administration ("HCFA"), Nancy-Ann Min DeParle,1 asking the court to declare that the 1993 amendments to 42 U.S.C. § I 396p are unconstitutional and to enjoin the defendants from enforcing the amendments. At issue is the requirement in these amendments that states recover from the estates of certain Medicaid recipients reimhursement for nursing home and other long-term care benefits (hereinafter the "estate recovery program").

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
In Re: Mountain Laurel Resources Company, et al. v. Roy V. Wolfe, III, et al. 02/16/2001
5:00-cv-00610

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is the appeal by Lewis Law (Law) and Mining Management, Inc. (MMI)1 of a final judgment of the bankruptcy court denying their motion to proceed to trial against CSX Minerals and the CSX Entities.  Because the Court finds the bankruptcy court properly interpreted its own order, the judgment below is AFFIRMED.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Donna Miller v. BAS Technical Employment Placement Company, et al. 02/01/2001
2:00-cv-00896

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff's motion to remand. The Court DENIES the motion without prejudice.1

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
Carter Enterprises, Inc. v. Ashland Specialty Co., Inc. 01/30/2001
3:00-cv-00294

Order

This case is an appeal from the denial by the bankruptcy judge of Appellant's objections to Appellee's proof of claim and the February 17, 2000 judgment order of the bankruptcy court.  The Court disposes with oral argument because the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the briefs and in the record, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument.  See FED. R. BANKR. P. Rule 8012.  For the reasons set forth below, the Court AFFIRMS the judgment order of the bankruptcy court.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Canal Insurance Company v. Christal Pearl Blankenship, et al. 01/30/2001
5:00-cv-00143

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending are cross-motions for summary judgment by 1) Plaintiff Canal Insurance Company (Canal); 2) Defendants Christal Pearl Blankenship, Rebecca Keneda, and Robert Blankenship (Blankenship Defendants); and 3) Defendant Susan Keneda.  As discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and DENIES Defendants’ motions.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II
United States of America v. Timothy Jenkins 01/23/2001
6:00-cv-00254

Order

On January 18, 2001, Timothy Jenkins (“the defendant”) appeared before this court and pled guilty to violating 18 U.S.C. § 922(u) and 924(i)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.  Specifically, the defendant pled guilty to aiding and abetting the theft of five handguns from a federally licensed dealer.  After accepting the defendant’s guilty plea, the court denied the defendant release on bail pending sentencing.  The court found that aiding and abetting the theft of firearms from a federally licensed dealer is a crime of violence for the purpose of determining eligibility for release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143.  The court writes now to explain its decision.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Jewell L. Burton and Steven Burton v. United States of America 01/23/2001
3:00-cv-00009

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the Court is the government’s motion to amend its answer.  For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS the motion.

Author:
Robert J. Staker
Calvin T. Young v. Dr. Joyce Conley 01/23/2001
5:00-cv-00998

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Petitioner’s application under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus based on a challenge to his sentence pursuant to Apprendi v. New Jersey, 120 S.Ct. 2348 (2000). The petition was previously referred to the Honorable Mary S. Feinberg, United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted her Findings and Recommendation pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). Petitioner has filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. Following de novo review of Petitioner’s objections, the Court DENIES the application with prejudice.

Author:
Charles H. Haden II

Pages