Turner v. West Virginia Regional Jail Authority et al

Filing 28

ORDER adopting and incorporating the 26 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; directing that the 13 Motion by C.O. Holiday and Sgt. Toney to dismiss is denied as moot; the 16 Motion by West Virginia Regional Jail Authority to Dismiss is granted; the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority is dismissed from this action. The matter continues to be referred to Magistrate Judge Tinsley as to the remaining defendants. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/28/2018. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley) (taq)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON RICHARD DALE TURNER, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:16-cv-04346 WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AUTHORITY, C.O. PERRY, C.O. ALLEN, C.O. HOLIDAY, Sgt. TONEY, AND MEDICAL STAFF, Defendants. ORDER Pending are the motion to dismiss by defendants Holiday and Toney for lack of service, filed on March 17, 2017, and the motion to dismiss by defendant West Virginia Regional Jail Authority, filed on March 23, 2017. This matter having been referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), he filed his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) on these two motions on January 9, 2018. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommends that the individual defendants’ motion be denied as moot, inasmuch as they have since been properly served, and that the jail authority’s motion be granted, among other reasons, because it is not a “person” that can be sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and is immune from a suit for damages UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON THOMAS PARKER, under the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Plaintiff, During a motions hearing before the magistrate judge, plaintiff v. Civil Action No. 15-14025 agreed to the dismissal of the jail authority from the suit. THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY LONG TERM DISABILITY PROGRAM, an Employee Welfare Benefits Plan, No objections having been filed to the PF&R, the LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OF BOSTON, a Massachusetts Corporation, and parties have waived de novo review by this court. Accordingly, DOES 1 THROUGH 10, inclusive, it is ordered as follows: Defendants. ORDER AND NOTICE 1. That the PF&R be, and it hereby is, adopted and Pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 16.1, it is ORDERED that the incorporated in full herein. following dates are hereby fixed as the time by or on which certain events must occur: to dismiss by C.O. Holiday and Sgt. 2. That the motion 01/28/2016 Motions under F.R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with Toney be, and it hereby is, denied as moot. or other supporting briefs, memoranda, affidavits, such matter in support thereof. (All motions 3. That the motion to dismiss will be West Virginia unsupported by memoranda by the denied without prejudice pursuant to L.R. Civ. P. 7.1 (a)). Regional Jail Authority be, and it hereby is, 02/08/2016 Last day for Rule 26(f) meeting. granted. 02/15/2016 Last day to file Report of Parties= Planning Meeting. See L.R. Civ. P. 16.1. 4. That the West Virginia Regional Jail Authority be, 02/22/2016 and it hereby is, dismissed from this action. Scheduling conference at 4:30 p.m. at the Robert C. Byrd United States Courthouse in Charleston, before the undersigned, unless canceled. Lead counsel directed to appear. The matter continues to be referred to Magistrate 02/29/2016 Entry of remaining order. Judge Tinsley as to thescheduling defendants. The Clerk is 03/08/2016 to transmit copies of this orderPto plaintiff, all Last day to serve F.R. Civ. 26(a)(1) disclosures. requested counsel of The Clerkand United States transmit this Order and L. record, is requested to Magistrate Judge Dwane Notice to Tinsley. all counsel of record and to any unrepresented parties. DATED: February 28, 2016 January 5, 2018 John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge 2

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?