Price v. Correctional Medical Services, Mt. Olive Correctional Complex, No. 2:2008cv00259 - Document 77 (S.D.W. Va. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER for reasons to be explained in a memorandum opinion to be issued forthwith, the court SUSTAINS defendant's objections to the magistrate judge's findings; granting defendant's 54 MOTION for Summary Judgmen t; denying plaintiff's 58 MOTION to Dismiss defendant's motion for summary judgment; the court withholds its judgment order pending issuance of the explanatory memorandum opinion. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 3/31/2010. (cc: pro se plaintiff, attys) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON MARK DEWAYNE PRICE, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08-00259 CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the court is defendant s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 54) and plaintiff s motion to dismiss the same (Doc. No. 58). By Standing Order entered August 1, 2006, and filed in this case on April 17, 2008, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Mary E. Stanley. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), the Standing Order directs Magistrate Judge Stanley to submit proposed findings and recommendation concerning the disposition of this matter. Magistrate Judge Stanley submitted her Proposed Findings and Recommendation ( PF & R ) on January 21, 2010, recommending that this court deny the motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiff s motion as moot. (Doc. No. 71.) In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the parties were allotted ten days, plus three mailing days, in which to file any objections to Magistrate Judge Stanley s PF & R. Defendant filed timely objections on February 2, 2010, (Doc. No. 74), to which plaintiff responded shortly thereafter (Doc. No. 76). As such, the court has conducted a de novo review. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). For reasons to be explained in a memorandum opinion to be issued forthwith, the court (1) SUSTAINS defendant s objections to the magistrate judge s findings (Doc. No. 74); (2) GRANTS defendant s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 54); and (3) DENIES plaintiff s motion to dismiss defendant s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 58). The court withholds its judgment order pending issuance of the explanatory memorandum opinion. The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to plaintiff, pro se. It is SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2010. ENTER: David A. Faber Senior United States District Judge -2-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
