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.

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
Garland Murray v. Devon Lilly, et al. 09/26/2019
2:18-cv-00942

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendants William Sumpter, Devon Lilly, Donald Slack, James Smith, and Richard Toney’s motion for summary judgment [ECF No. 131]. The Plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 140], and the Defendants filed a reply [ECF No. 143]. The matter is ripe for adjudication. For the reasons stated herein, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Jason Wattie Buzzard 09/03/2019
2:19-cr-00022

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant’s Motion to Suppress [ECF No. 20]. The court held a hearing on this Motion on April 24, 2019, and ordered additional briefing. The defendant and the government have submitted additional briefs, and the matter is now ripe for review. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Nyoka Wurts v. Branch Banking and Trust Company 08/27/2019
2:19-cv-00100

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiff’s Motion to Remand [ECF No. 8]. For the reasons that follow, the Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. Brandi Martin 04/15/2019
2:19-cr-00038

Memorandum Opinion

Pending before the court was defendant’s motion to dismiss the indictment with prejudice for violation of the Speedy Trial Act.  (ECF No. 37).  The government filed a response in opposition to defendant’s motion, see ECF No. 38, and a pretrial motions hearing was held in this matter on March 26, 2019.  At the conclusion of the hearing, the court GRANTED defendant’s motion insofar as it sought dismissal of the indictment but DENIED the motion to dismiss with prejudice.  Instead, the court dismissed the indictment without prejudice.  The reasons for that decision follow.

Author:
David A. Faber
Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston, West Virginia v. Scott Pruitt, et al. 10/04/2018
2:16-cv-03060

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the Motion for an Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses, filed by plaintiff Sanitary Board of the City of Charleston, West Virginia (“Sanitary Board”) on April 12, 2018 [ECF No. 42]. For the reasons stated below, the Motion is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Philip J. Tomashek, II v. Raleigh County Emergency Operating Center, et al. 09/26/2018
2;17-cv-01904

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is Defendants Robert Steven Tanner, A.S. Meadows, J.D. Johnson, and the Raleigh County Commission’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF No. 117]. The plaintiff filed a response [ECF No. 122], and the defendants filed a reply [ECF No. 123]. This matter is now ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The principal legal question before the court is one of first impression in this Circuit: Does Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), bar § 1983 claims following a plaintiff’s successful completion of a pretrial diversion program? I find that it does not.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Hannah Knouse, et al. v. Primecare Medical of West Virginia, et al. 09/24/2018
2:18-cv-01014

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are defendants West Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility Authority (“WVRJA”) and Brad Douglas’ Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 32] and defendant James Chandler’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF. No. 34] pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the factual matter, legal standards, and arguments of these motions overlap, the court has decided them together. For the reasons discussed below, the Motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Samuel R. Ballangee v. CBS Broadcasting, Inc., et al. 08/21/2018
2:17-cv-00212

Memorandum Opinion and Order

In 2007, the plaintiff, Samuel Ballengee, opened Tug Valley Pharmacy (“Tug Valley”) in Williamson, West Virginia, within two blocks of two notorious pill mills that were eventually shut down by government agencies. Customers formed lines outside of these pill mills daily before they opened. Tug Valley filled eye-popping quantities of pain prescriptions written by reckless doctors at these pill mills. In 2009, Tug Valley filled 42,115 hydrocodone prescriptions in a town with a population of only 3090. This was more than enough to give every man, woman, and child in Williamson a hydrocodone prescription every month of the year.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Claude R. Knight, et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 06/19/2018
3:15-cv-06424

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Accordingly, and as explained below, the Court GRANTS, IN PART and DENIES, IN PART, Defendant’s Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 47), DENIES Defendant’s Financial Metrics Motion, GRANTS, IN PART and DENIES, IN PART, Plaintiffs’ Omnibus Motion (ECF No. 73), GRANTS, IN PART and DENIES, IN PART, Defendant’s Motion to Exclude Spoliation (ECF No. 63), and DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 71).

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages