Smith v. Western Regional Jail et al, No. 3:2012cv07358 - Document 168 (S.D.W. Va. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER The Court Denies Plaintiff's objections, Adopts and Incorporates the 165 Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge and denies Plaintiff's 141 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 1/17/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party, Magistrate Judge Eifert) (skm)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Smith v. Western Regional Jail et al Doc. 168 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION WILLIAM E. SMITH, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:12-CV-7358 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BERLIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER MARCUM; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER BLANKENSHIP; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER GOODWIN; CORRECTIONAL OFFICER VANMETER; AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICER LAMBERT, Defendants. ORDER On December 20, 2013, the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, issued Proposed Findings and Recommendations that Plaintiff William E. Smith’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment Against Defendants Berlin, Marcum, Blankenship, and Lambert be denied because genuine issues of material fact exist. Plaintiff, acting pro se, objects and argues that Defendants’ failure to comply with discovery requests has thwarted his motion. Plaintiff asserts that, if Defendants complied with discovery, his motion would be granted. Therefore, Plaintiff requests this Court to conduct a de novo review of all the records in this case and sanction Defendants for failing to produce discovery. Upon de novo review, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s objections and request for sanctions. It is clear that discovery is on-going in this case before the Magistrate Judge. If Dockets.Justia.com Plaintiff believes he is entitled to certain discovery and/or if he believes Defendants are failing to comply with discovery, he may address those issues with the Magistrate Judge through the normal discovery process. In addition, the Court has reviewed the Findings and Recommendations and agrees with the Magistrate Judge that partial summary judgment is inappropriate because there are genuine issues of material fact preventing partial summary judgment from being entered in Plaintiff’s favor. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s objections (ECF No. 167), ADOPTS and INCORPORATES the Proposed Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 165), and DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 141). The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to Magistrate Judge Eifert, counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: -2- January 17, 2014
]]>
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.
