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.

Baxley et al. v. Jividen et al. 04/08/2020
3:18-cv-1526

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Defendants’ Prevention, Management, and Treatment of COVID-19.” Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 161. Defendants timely filed a Response in Opposition, Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 168, and Plaintiffs did the same with their Reply, Reply, ECF No. 173. The parties also provided supplemental information to the Court, which has all been filed under seal. See Exs., ECF -2-  No. 181. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion on April 6, 2020 and determined that the issues had been adequately presented through the parties’ submissions and oral argument, and therefore dispensed with the need for further witness testimony. Video Mot. Hr’g, ECF No. 180. For the reasons set forth below—as well as for those announced on the record at the hearing—the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Dakota Nelson, et al. v. Mac Warner, et al. 03/17/2020
3:19-cv-00898

Memorandum Decision and Order

This suit challenges the constitutionality of a West Virginia law mandating that the party whose candidate for president received the most votes in the last election be listed first on ballots for partisan offices. Defendant Vera McCormick, Clerk of Kanawha County, now moves to dismiss. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES her Motion.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Michael Walker v. B.E. Donahoe et al. 03/02/2020
3:18-cv-1523

Memorandum Decision and Order

Responding to a 9-1-1 call, Brian Donahoe and Brandon Pauley of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department stopped Michael Walker while he was walking down a road openly carrying an AR-15-style rifle. Walker alleges Donahoe seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that Pauley is liable for not intervening. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. Because Donahoe had reasonable suspicion to stop Walker and run a criminal history check, the Court grants summary judgment in the defendants’ favor.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
United States of America v. Brandon Carter 02/25/2020
2:19-cr-00078

Memorandum Decision and Order

On February 20, 2020, I sentenced Defendant Brandon Carter to a term of imprisonment of 30 months, followed by 3 years of supervised release. [ECF No. 39]. At Defendant Carter’s sentencing hearing, he objected to the calculation of his base offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the “Guidelines”), arguing that the Guidelines do not include “attempt” offenses in the definition of a “controlled substance offense.” I ORDER the objection sustained based on the reasons given at the sentencing hearing and those that follow.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Jason Wattie Buzzard 02/15/2020
2:19-cr-00022

Memorandum Decision and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Jason Buzzard’s objection to a four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In accordance with my ruling at the January 17, 2020 Sentencing Hearing and for the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Tammy Sherrell Wilson v. United States, et al. 02/03/2020
3:18-cv-00890

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff's Motion to Amend and Join Additional Parties. (ECF No. 68). The defendants have filed memoranda in opposition to the Motion. For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion, in part, as it applies to some of the proposed defendants. The remaining defendants are addressed in the Proposed Findings & Recommendations filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Author:
Cheryl A. Eifert
Laurie Forbes v. Boston Scientific Corp. 12/13/2019
2:12-cv-00792

Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum of Law Determining Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC’s Litigation Purchase Agreement is Unenforceable as a Violation of Public Policy. [ECF No. 67]. The instant lawsuit alleges negligence, strict liability and other claims against defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”)1 related to the implantation of pelvic mesh, which was allegedly manufactured by BSC. In the Motion filed by plaintiff, plaintiff seeks a determination by this court that a contract entered into by plaintiff and Prospect Funding Partners, a litigation funding company and nonparty to the instant litigation, is unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. Plaintiff’s claim related to Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC is a separate and distinct contract dispute between plaintiff and a nonparty to the instant action. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy v. Uttam Dhillon, et al. 10/30/2019
2:19-cv-00716

Memorandum Opinion and Order

The question before the court is whether a sufficient factual basis existed to justify the United States Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) issuance of an ex parte emergency order immediately suspending the petitioner’s, Oak Hill Hometown Pharmacy (“the Pharmacy”), registration to distribute controlled substances. I find that the DEA did not provide such a factual basis and therefore DISSOLVE the Order of Immediate Suspension of Registration (“ISO”).

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Cole Dylan Cooper 10/08/2019
2:19-cr-00081

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Cooper’s objection to designating his 2015 conviction for conspiracy to commit first degree robbery in West Virginia as a “crime of violence” pursuant to § 4B1.2 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines. For the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Yvonne Dozier 09/26/2019
2:19-cr-00214

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the proffered guilty plea to Count 1 of the Single Count Information in United States v. Yvonne Dozier. On September 9, 2019, the court conducted a plea colloquy pursuant to Rule 11, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 11, at which time Defendant Dozier pleaded guilty to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1029(a)(2), Access Device Fraud. In conducting the plea hearing, the court questioned whether a sufficient factual basis existed for the guilty plea in that Defendant Dozier did not obtain the access device, here a State Purchase Card, with the intent to defraud, thereby not satisfying all the elements of the charge. After considering the arguments on both sides, the matter is now ready for the court’s review. The question before the court is whether an unauthorized access device must be obtained with the intent to defraud at the time the access device is acquired, or whether later unauthorized use suffices. For the reasons stated herein, the proffered plea of guilty is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin

Pages