The case involved ex-spouses Casey and Kathy Warden who owned a home in West Virginia; after Mr. Warden obtained a mortgage from PHH secured by the property and later defaulted, PHH denied his application for a HAMP loan modification because he did not reside there, and Fannie Mae acquired the property at a foreclosure sale. The plaintiffs sued PHH and Fannie Mae alleging breach of contract, violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and other claims related to the modification process, payment notices, and foreclosure. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. It reasoned that the undisputed facts showed the borrowers remained delinquent on multiple payments despite trial period payments, that PHH's denial and notices complied with the loan documents, and that the plaintiffs failed to raise genuine issues of material fact on any count.
This case involves a challenge to the denial of Social Security disability benefits by a claimant who argued that the Appeals Council failed to explain its evaluation of new evidence and that the ALJ's assessment of the claimant's daily activities was unsupported, leading to improper weighing of the treating physician's opinion and the claimant's credibility. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review. It held that Fourth Circuit precedent does not require the Appeals Council to provide detailed reasons when additional evidence does not warrant changing the ALJ's decision. The court further determined that substantial evidence in the record, including the claimant's self-reported activities such as outdoor chores, provided persuasive contradictory evidence justifying the ALJ's decision not to give controlling weight to the treating physician's opinion. The court therefore denied the claimant's motion for summary judgment and granted the Commissioner's motion.
The case involves defendant Barton Adams in a criminal prosecution, apparently for healthcare fraud, who filed multiple motions seeking to vacate court orders including a repatriation order for overseas funds, a protective order preserving assets, a civil contempt order, and dismissal on speedy trial and constitutional grounds. The court denied the motions to vacate the repatriation and protective orders, ruling that they do not compel self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment because the charges concern the defendant's entitlement to the funds rather than their receipt, and the orders were issued after indictment under 21 U.S.C. § 853(e)(4)(A) to ensure asset availability for potential forfeiture. The court further held that the protective order did not expire after fourteen days as it was not a pre-indictment temporary restraining order, and the ex parte issuance did not violate the defendant's Fifth or Sixth Amendment rights.
The case concerned West Virginia University's policy allowing police to issue indefinite trespassing forms banning individuals from campus property without written standards for when or how to issue them, what conduct justifies a ban, the scope or duration of the ban, or any formal appeal process. Plaintiff Kenneth Williams, an African American male, received such a form after being observed in the student union building and challenged the policy as violating due process under the U.S. and West Virginia constitutions. The court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and denied the defendants' motion, declaring the policy unconstitutional, enjoining its use, and vacating the specific form issued to Williams. The core reasoning was that the lack of guidelines, training, notice, and a meaningful hearing where the university bears the burden violated procedural due process requirements for depriving individuals of liberty interests in accessing generally public university spaces.
This case is a declaratory judgment action brought by injured plaintiff Brandon Nutter and another individual against insurer St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company after the insurer denied coverage to its insured, the City of Piedmont, in an underlying tort suit stemming from severe injuries Nutter sustained while assisting with an unlicensed fireworks display at a 2005 community festival. The underlying complaint alleged negligence and premises liability by the City for failing to enforce state permit, licensing, and safety requirements for the display. The district court granted the insurer’s motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, holding that a Public Sector Services Excluded Operations and Premises Endorsement unambiguously added a fireworks-display exclusion to the policy’s liability coverage section. The court found the exclusion was plainly presented on its own endorsement page, listed in the policy’s table of contents, and not concealed or ambiguous, so it barred any duty to indemnify the City.
This case concerns a dispute between the Patrick Henry Estates Homeowners Association and successor developer Dr. Gerald Miller over obligations in the 1981 subdivision declaration to maintain common properties and streets until conveyed to the association and to complete that conveyance by January 1, 1987. The association moved for partial summary judgment on Miller's counterclaims, while Miller sought partial summary judgment in his favor. The court granted the association's motion in full and Miller's motion in part and denied it in part, holding that the declaration unambiguously assigns pre-conveyance maintenance duties to the developer, that the association need not fund such maintenance with assessments, and that Miller remains responsible for deteriorated common areas he has not yet deeded over.
