John Preston Bailey

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.

propertybusiness & regulatoryprocedure

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.

healthcareprocedure

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.

criminal lawprocedurehealthcarecivil 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.

civil rightsprocedure

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.

business & regulatorytorts & liabilityprocedure

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.

property

The case involves a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Donald Raymond Barbe challenging his state convictions on Counts Ten and Eleven of an indictment for second-degree sexual assault. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation after de novo review of the petitioner's objections, granting the petition as to the ex post facto claim because the state court sentenced him under the 1991 version of W. Va. Code § 61-8B-4, and remanding for resentencing on those counts. The court denied relief on the due process claim, finding that jury instructions referencing sexual intrusion rather than sexual intercourse as charged in the indictment did not impermissibly broaden the offenses or prejudice the defense, which centered on fabrication of the allegations. The decision followed review of the record, including testimony from the victim and analysis of state law definitions of sexual intercourse and intrusion.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved plaintiffs Jason and Jennifer Lomax suing Bank of America, N.A. and BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP for repeated debt collection calls and payment demands on a home equity loan after foreclosure, bankruptcy filing, and discharge, alleging violations of the West Virginia Credit and Consumer Protection Act, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and provisions of the Bankruptcy Code regarding the automatic stay and discharge injunction. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, primarily arguing preemption by the National Bank Act and the Bankruptcy Code, while the plaintiffs also filed a motion to strike the defendants' reply or for leave to file a surreply. The court granted both motions in part and denied them in part, concluding that certain state-law claims were preempted by the Bankruptcy Code but that federal FDCPA claims and some other allegations could proceed, and allowing consideration of the plaintiffs' surreply on preemption issues.

business & regulatoryfederal powerprocedure

This case is a putative class action filed in West Virginia state court by customers against AT&T entities, alleging breach of contract and violations of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, and later removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. The defendants moved to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act based on arbitration clauses in the plaintiffs' wireless service agreements. The court granted the motion and dismissed the claims of the two plaintiffs who had entered such agreements without prejudice. The core reasoning was that the FAA requires enforcement of written arbitration agreements covering the disputes, the clauses here were valid and encompassed the claims (including on an individual basis), and any challenges to the overall contract validity were to be decided by the arbitrator rather than the court.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

The case involved a medical malpractice claim by the guardians of a minor child, M.G., who allegedly suffered brain damage and developmental delays due to negligence during his birth in November 2000 at a federally funded health center. After an initial federal suit was dismissed for failure to file an administrative claim under the FTCA, the plaintiffs filed such a claim and then a new lawsuit in 2008 against the United States, which had substituted itself as defendant for the providers. The court granted the United States' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding the claims time-barred under the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2401(b)) because the plaintiffs knew or should have known of the injuries shortly after birth based on medical records and expert testimony, and equitable tolling did not apply.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a federal prisoner's motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence after pleading guilty to distributing 1.15 grams of cocaine base pursuant to a plea agreement that included an appeal and collateral-attack waiver. The petitioner claimed ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging his attorney inaccurately predicted a sentence of 57-71 months when he was later sentenced to 120 months as a career offender. The court overruled the petitioner's objections, adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, and denied the § 2255 motion. It reasoned that the plea agreement and colloquy made clear the maximum penalty and that the sentence could not be determined until after the presentence report, the petitioner confirmed he understood the waiver and terms, and even an initial inaccurate prediction did not constitute deficient performance or prejudice given the time before the plea and the lack of evidence.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves former employees of PNGI Charles Town Gaming, LLC who sued under the Fair Labor Standards Act alleging failure to pay required overtime compensation. The Fourth Circuit had previously ruled that the plaintiffs were not exempt administrative employees, reversing an earlier summary judgment for the defendant. The district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability consistent with that ruling. On damages issues, the court applied the Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery burden-shifting standard due to the employer's inadequate time records and addressed calculation of overtime hours, compensation methods including the fluctuating workweek approach, liquidated damages, willfulness for the statute of limitations, and attorneys' fees.

labor & employmentprocedurebusiness & regulatory

This case arose when Dr. James C. Bosley died by suicide after officers from the West Virginia State Police and Mineral County Sheriff's Office arrived at his home to serve a mental hygiene order; his family sued the officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging deliberate indifference to his constitutional rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments as well as negligence and wrongful death. The district court granted summary judgment to the remaining defendants, Colonel D.L. Lemmon and Corporal James M. Mills. The court held that the officers' conduct did not violate any clearly established constitutional right, that they were entitled to qualified immunity, and that state-law claims for negligence and vicarious liability failed because the officers were performing discretionary functions within the scope of their duties.

civil rightstorts & liability

The case concerned a defendant under federal investigation for crack cocaine distribution who moved to suppress statements made during a hospital interview while recovering from a gunshot wound. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and denied the motion to suppress. The court found that, under the totality of the circumstances, the defendant was not in custody because his freedom of action was not curtailed to a degree associated with formal arrest, so no Miranda warnings were required, and that the government proved by a preponderance of the evidence the statements were voluntary because the defendant was alert and responsive despite being on medication and paralyzed.

criminal lawprocedure

In this case, petitioner Richardson, who had pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base with intent to distribute and waived his appellate rights, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging his sentence on multiple grounds including ineffective assistance of counsel. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation, after an evidentiary hearing, concluded that counsel had been instructed to file an appeal but failed to do so, constituting per se ineffective assistance, while other claims lacked merit due to the valid waiver. The district court overruled the parties' objections, adopted the report and recommendation, denied the § 2255 motion in part, and granted it in part by vacating the original judgment and ordering resentencing to allow an appeal. The core reasoning was that when a defendant directs counsel to appeal and it is not filed, this amounts to ineffective assistance irrespective of the appeal's merits or any waiver, citing precedents like Evitts v. Lucey.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a petition by St. Christopher Trucking, Inc. and Springlick Pallet, Inc. for the immediate release of funds seized from their accounts by the government under seizure warrants. The court denied the petition under 18 U.S.C. § 983(f), finding that paragraph (f)(8)(A) bars release of currency unless it constitutes the assets of a legitimate business that itself has been seized. The court interpreted the statute to require actual seizure of the business rather than just its funds, rejected a proposed "constructive seizure" doctrine because the companies continued operating, and noted that the government did not contest other hardship factors but prevailed on the statutory exclusion.

criminal lawprocedureproperty

The case involved West Virginia University suing its former head football coach, Richard Rodriguez, in state court after he resigned to take a position at the University of Michigan, seeking a declaration that his employment contract was valid and enforceable and that he owed the university liquidated damages. Rodriguez removed the action to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The university moved to remand, arguing it was an arm or alter ego of the State of West Virginia and that Rodriguez was a West Virginia citizen at the time of filing, both of which would destroy diversity. The court granted the motion to remand and denied jurisdictional discovery as moot, applying the four-factor Ram Ditta test to conclude that the university was not a citizen of the state for diversity purposes because it functioned as an alter ego of West Virginia, with judgments affecting the state treasury and limited autonomy under state law.

procedurefederal power

This case is an appeal from a bankruptcy court decision involving a debtor who defaulted on a mortgage secured by his home, leading to a foreclosure sale under West Virginia law before he filed a Chapter 13 petition. The debtor sought to cure the mortgage default and undo the sale through his bankruptcy plan, arguing he retained rights to the property since the deed had not yet been recorded. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court's ruling that the foreclosure sale extinguished the debtor's equity of redemption under state law, so the property was no longer part of the bankruptcy estate and the debtor had no right to cure or avoid the sale. The core reasoning relied on 11 U.S.C. § 541, which limits the estate to the debtor's pre-petition interests, and West Virginia's treatment of foreclosure sales as completing the transfer of equitable title without a post-sale redemption period. The court also addressed related issues like payment timing but upheld the bankruptcy court's conclusion that the sale terminated cure rights under § 1322(c)(1).

propertyprocedure

In this habeas corpus case under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, petitioner Murdock challenged the Bureau of Prisons' policy limiting his placement in a Community Corrections Center (CCC) to the final 10% of his sentence (about 46 days), rather than up to the last six months as he requested. The magistrate judge recommended granting relief, and after de novo review of the government's objections, the district court adopted that recommendation. The court reasoned that the BOP's categorical 10% rule, based on its 2002 and 2005 policies, failed to properly exercise discretion by individually considering the five statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3621(b) when making CCC placement decisions under § 3624(c). The court rejected arguments on exhaustion, ripeness, and deference to the agency's interpretation, finding the policy inconsistent with the statute.

criminal lawfederal power

This case involves a legal malpractice claim brought by State & County Mutual Fire Insurance Company against attorney William Prentice Young, who was retained by the insurer to defend its insureds in an underlying auto accident lawsuit. The insurer alleged that Young's failure to respond to discovery and motions forced it to settle the case for more than its value. Young moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the insurer lacked standing because no attorney-client relationship existed between it and Young. The court denied the motion, holding that the employment agreement between the insurer and Young established the necessary relationship under West Virginia law, and alternatively that the Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers recognizes a duty of care owed by the attorney to the insurer when interests align.

proceduretorts & liability