Raines v. Ballard, No. 2:2016cv04890 - Document 19 (S.D.W. Va. 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 18 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting respondent's 11 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody; and this action is dismissed with prejudice and removed from the docket of the court. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/9/2017. (cc: petitioner; counsel of record; United States Magistrate Judge) (taq)

Download PDF
Raines v. Ballard Doc. 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON RICKEY VON RAINES, Petitioner, v. Civil Action No. 2:16-4890 DAVID BALLARD, Warden, Mount Olive Correctional Complex, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The court having received the Proposed Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert, filed on May 3, 2017, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); and having reviewed the record in this proceeding; and there being no objections filed by any party to the proposed findings and recommendation; and it appearing proper so to do, it is ORDERED that the findings and conclusions made in the proposed findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge be, and they hereby are, adopted by the court. It is, therefore, ORDERED that: 1. Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be, and it hereby is granted; 2. Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person Dockets.Justia.com in State Custody be, and it hereby is, denied; and 3. That this action be, and it hereby is, dismissed with prejudice and removed from the docket of the court. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to plaintiff, all counsel of record and the United States Magistrate Judge. DATED: June 9, 2017 2016 DATED: January 5, John T. Copenhaver, Jr. United States District Judge

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.