Weldon v. Hodge et al

Filing 209

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 193 Objections and 194 Supplemental Objections; adopting and incorporating the 189 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge; granting Defendants' 97 Motion to Enforce the Settlement; ev en if Plaintiff refuses to sign the Release, the settlement is hereby enforced, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; further denying Plaintiff's 155 Letter-Form Motion for this Court to clarify its Order of 10/17/2017; further denying Plaintiff's 199 Affidavit/Affirmation in Support of Motion for Jury Trial as this case is resolved. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 8/31/2018. (cc: Magistrate Judge Eifert; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (jsa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
HUNTINGTON DIVISION

MONIQUE NICOLE WELDON,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-7887

BOYD HODGE, Maintenance Officer;
PAUL STUMP, Unit Manager;
SHELBY SEARLS, Unit Manager; and
WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS,
Defendants.
ORDER
On September 27, 2017, this Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order enforcing
a settlement agreement between the parties. Mem. Op. & Order, at 13, ECF No. 143. However, as
questions remained as to whether Defendants complied with the agreement, the Court referred the
matter “to the Magistrate Judge to determine whether the defendants fully complied with the valid
settlement agreement by expunging the infraction before the parole board hearing.” Id. at 14-15.
Thereafter, the Magistrate Judge issued Proposed Findings and Recommendations (PF&R)
concluding that Defendants had fulfilled their obligations under the settlement agreement, namely:
1.

Defendants would pay Plaintiff the sum of $5,000;

2.

Defendants would expunge from Plaintiff’s inmate record “the disciplinary
action for ‘false representation’” arising from an incident that occurred at
LCC on September 9, 2016; and

3.

Defendants would re-evaluate Plaintiff’s Level of Service/Case
Management Inventory (“LSCMI”) in light of the expungement[.]

PF&R, at 2, ECF No. 189. 1 Plaintiff has filed an Objection and Supplemental Objection to the
PF&R. ECF Nos. 193 & 194. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES the objections.

Plaintiff’s first objection is to the Magistrate Judge’s denial of her request for a copy of
Defendants’ insurance policy. In denying the request, the Magistrate Judge found the policy is
irrelevant to the remaining issues. PF&R, at 3. Upon review, the Court agrees. Whether or not
there is an insurance policy that covers the $5,000 settlement is immaterial to whether Defendants
fulfilled their obligations under the settlement.

Next, Plaintiff complains that a check was issued to her for $5,000, but that check is now
void. Defendants do not deny the check is void, but state it resulted from Plaintiff’s refusal to
complete the settlement and sign a Release. Resp. to Plf.’s Obj. to PF&R, at 2, ECF No. 195.
Defendants represent, however, that a check will be reissued to Plaintiff if the Court adopts the
PF&R and after Plaintiff signs a Release. Id. The Court accepts Defendants’ representation that a
check will be reissued. Therefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s objection.

Plaintiff’s third objection is that she seeks to be reimbursed $1,100 in “costs of litigation”
for this case and another civil action she filed (Civ. Act. No. 3:16-3815) and $1,500 for mail and
copying costs. There is no basis for this claim, and it was not part of the settlement agreement.
Therefore, this objection is DENIED.

1

Plaintiff also was required to sign a full and complete release of all claims against
Defendants asserted in three civil actions she had pending in state and federal courts. Id.
-2-

In her Supplemental Objection, Plaintiff also objects to the manner in which her Level of
Service/Care Management Inventory (LSCMI) score was calculated. However, as thoroughly
explained by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff’s disciplinary charge was expunged and her LSCMI
was revised and given to the Parole Board. Therefore, Defendants fulfilled their obligation under
the settlement agreement. Although Plaintiff is unsatisfied with the LSCMI and Procriminal
Attitude/Orientation score given to the Parole Board, the Magistrate Judge addressed the basis for
those calculation, and the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations that her revised scores violate Due
Process are unsupported. Thus, the Court DENIES her Supplemental Objection.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Objections and
Supplemental Objections (ECF Nos. 193 & 194), ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES HEREIN
the Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge, and GRANTS Defendants’
Motion to Enforce the Settlement. ECF No. 97. Even if Plaintiff refuses to sign the Release, the
settlement is hereby enforced, and this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Court also
DENIES Plaintiff’s letter-form motion for this Court to clarify the Order it entered on October 17,
2017 (ECF No. 155), and further DENIES “Plaintiff’s Affidavit/Affirmation in Support of Motion
for Jury Trial” as this case is resolved. ECF No. 199.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to the Honorable Cheryl A.
Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties.
ENTER:

August 31, 2018

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
-3-