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.

Jane Doe, et al. v. Wood County Board of Education, et al. 08/29/2012
6:12-cv-04355

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction [Docket 4]. A hearing was held on August 27, 2012. The court holds today that the option to opt out of a single-sex education program does not satisfy the requirement under the 2006 United States Department of Education regulations that single-sex programs be “completely voluntary.” 34 C.F.R. § 106.34(b)(1)(iii). However, the court also finds that the preliminary relief requested by the plaintiffs is overly broad. Accordingly and for the reasons set forth below, the court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 08/10/2012
3:11-cv-00149

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Plaintiffs1 challenge the decision by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (hereinafter “Army Corps” or simply “the Corps”) to issue an individual Clean Water Act (“CWA”) § 404 permit to Highland Mining Company (“Highland”) to discharge fill material into streams for the purpose of conducting surface coal mining activities at the Reylas Surface Mine located in Logan County, West Virginia.  In April 2011, this Court granted the Corps’ motion to remand the permit to the agency for reconsideration.  In September 2011, the Corps reinstated the permit, and this litigation resumed.  As a result of actions by the Corps during the remand, Plaintiffs have withdrawn Counts Two and Three of their Second Amended Complaint.  At this time, only Counts One and Four remain for resolution by the Court.  All parties have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on the remaining counts, and the Court granted partial summary judgment for the Corps in a short order on May 1, 2012.  Order, ECF No. 156.  The rationale for that decision is set forth herein.  The remainder of the cross-motions were held in abeyance in order to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and this case is now ripe for decision.  For the reasons set forth below, the United States Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 116) is GRANTED.  Intervenor-Defendant Highland Mining Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 96) is GRANTED.  Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 94) is DENIED.  A separate judgment order will be entered along with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Shelia R. Combs, et al. v. Elkay Mining Company 08/08/2012
2:11-cv-00794

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are Elkay Mining Company’s Motion to Dismiss [Docket 7] and Elkay Mining Company’s Motions for Leave to File Newly-Acquired Authority [Dockets 16 and 21].  For the reasons discussed below, the Motions for Leave to File Newly-Acquired Authority are GRANTED and the motion to dismiss is DENIED.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Brian Sawyer v. Jim R. Asbury, et al. 05/18/2012
6:10-cv-01256

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Mr. Sawyer’s case was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983.  He claimed that Deputy Asbury violated his due process right to be free from excessive force while being held as a pretrial detainee.  The jury found for the defendant.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Gary Cozmyk v. Prompt Recovery Services, Inc. 03/30/2012
2:11-cv-00375

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court is the defendant Prompt Recovery Services, Inc.'s ("PRS") Combined Civil Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [Docket 14]. For the reasons discussed below, the defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and the defendant's Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
United States of America v. William Samuel Chester, Jr. 02/16/2012
2:08-cr-00105

Memorandum Opinion and Order

This case is before the court following the Judgment of the court of appeals entered December 30, 2010.  The issue for consideration is whether defendant William Samuel Chester's conviction for illegal possession of a firearm under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9) works a deprivation of the rights guaranteed him under the Second Amendment.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., and Chase Bank USA, N.A. 02/10/2012
3:11-cv-00683

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and for Costs and Fees (ECF No. 14).  For the reasons given below, the motion is GRANTED as to remand and DENIED as to costs and fees.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers
Scotty Powell and Rebecca Powell v. Bank of America, N.A., et al. 02/02/2012
2:11-cv-00335

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending is plaintiffs’ motion to remand, filed May 31, 2011.  Also pending are the motion of defendant Thomas A. Zamow (“nondiverse defendant”) to dismiss, filed September 8, 2011, and the motion of defendants Bank of America, N.A. (“Countrywide”), BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP (“BAC”), and The Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. (“Mellon”) (collectively, “diverse defendants”) to dismiss, filed September 14, 2011.

Author:
John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
Kim Withrow v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. 01/25/2012
2:10-cv-00993

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Pending before the court are the Motion by Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. for Summary Judgment [Docket 148], the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket 150], and the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized Notice Pursuant to Section 216(b) of the FLSA [Docket 157].  For the reasons discussed below, the defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, the plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED, and the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Conditional Certification is DENIED as moot.

Author:
Joseph R. Goodwin
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc., et al. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. 01/23/2012
3:11-cv-00149

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Currently pending are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint (ECF No. 46) and Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order (ECF No. 77).  For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File a Supplemental Complaint and DENIES as moot Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Protective Order.

Author:
Robert C. Chambers

Pages