Hallman-Warner et al v. Bluefield State College et al

Filing 58

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court GRANTS defendants' 37 Motion to Strike Reply to Response, DENIES defendants' 41 Motion to Strike plaintiff's supplement and GRANTS defendants' 28 Motion to Dismiss as set forth herein. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 3/13/2018. (cc: Plaintiffs, pro se; attys) (mk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BLUEFIELD SHELIA HALLMAN-WARNER and ROSCOE OLIVER WARNER, Plaintiffs, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-02882 BLUEFIELD STATE COLLEGE, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendants’ (1) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, (ECF No. 28), (2) Motion to Strike Reply to Response, (ECF No. 37), and (3) Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Supplement to Complaint, (ECF No. 41). By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of findings and recommendations regarding disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). ECF. No. 9. Magistrate Judge Eifert submitted to the court her Proposed Findings and Recommendation on January 19, 2018, in which she recommended that the district court (1) grant defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ reply to defendants’ response, (2) deny defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ supplement, and (3) grant defendants’ motion to dismiss. See ECF No. 48. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert’s Findings and Recommendation. The failure to file such objections constitutes a waiver of the right to a de novo review by this court. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). Plaintiffs failed to file any objections to the magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation within the seventeen-day period. Having reviewed the Findings and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Eifert, the court hereby ADOPTS the factual and legal analysis contained within the Findings and Recommendation and (1) GRANTS defendants’ motion to strike reply to response, (ECF No. 37), (2) DENIES defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs’ supplement, (ECF No. 41), and (3) GRANTS defendants’ motion to dismiss as follows: (1) Plaintiffs’ Title VII claims are dismissed, with prejudice; (2) Plaintiffs’ unexhausted claims are dismissed, without prejudice; and (3) Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment and defamation claims are dismissed, without prejudice, as variation of these claims may be filed in state court. See ECF No. 28. Accordingly, the court DIRECTS the Clerk to remove this case from the court’s docket. The Clerk is further directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and plaintiffs, pro se. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2018. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge     3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?