Hughes et al v. United States of America et al, No. 2:2019cv00037 - Document 100 (S.D.W. Va. 2020)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the findings made in the 99 PF&R of the magistrate judge are adopted and incorporated herein; the State's 73 motion to dismiss is granted; the 79 , 83 , 85 , 87 , 89 and 91 motions to dismi ss filed by the United States are granted; the 81 motion to strike plaintiffs' demand for a jury trial filed by the United States is denied as moot; the "Motions of the Plaintiffs in Complaint" is denied as moot; this action is dismissed from the court's docket. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 7/21/2020. (cc: plaintiffs; counsel of record; and the United States Magistrate Judge) (kew)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Hughes et al v. United States of America et al Doc. 100 Case 2:19-cv-00037 Document 100 Filed 07/21/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 738 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON DOUGLAS LEIGH HUGHES and KAREN DIANN DAVIS HUGHES, Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00037 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR, STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, and WEST VIRGINIA ATTORNEY GENERAL PATRICK MORRISEY, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are (a) the “Motions of the Plaintiffs in Complaint,” filed by plaintiffs on September 25, 2019; (b) a motion to dismiss the amended complaint filed by defendants the State of West Virginia and Patrick J. Morrisey (collectively, the “State”), on December 5, 2019; (c) six motions to dismiss filed by the United States of America and William Barr (collectively, the “United States”) on January 9, 2020; and (d) a motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial filed by the United States on January 9, 2020. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission to the court of Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:19-cv-00037 Document 100 Filed 07/21/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 739 his Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”) for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). On May 11, 2020, the magistrate judge entered a PF&R recommending that the court grant the State’s motion to dismiss, grant the six motions to dismiss filed by the United States; deny the motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial and the “Motions of the Plaintiffs in Complaint” as moot; and dismiss this action from the court’s docket. Plaintiffs having not filed any objections to the PF&R, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R of the magistrate judge be, and they hereby are, adopted by the court and incorporated herein. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. The State’s motion to dismiss be, and it hereby is, granted. 2. The six motions to dismiss filed by the United States be, and they hereby are, granted. 3. The motion to strike plaintiffs’ demand for a jury trial filed by the United States be, and it hereby is, denied as moot. 2 Case 2:19-cv-00037 Document 100 Filed 07/21/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 740 4. The “Motions of the Plaintiffs in Complaint” be, and it hereby is, denied as moot. 5. This action is dismissed from the court’s docket. The Clerk is directed to forward copies of this written opinion and order to plaintiffs, all counsel of record, and the United States Magistrate Judge. ENTER: July 21, 2020 3
]]>
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.
