Murphy v. Akers et al, No. 3:2020cv00409 - Document 109 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER accepting and incorporating Magistrate Judge Tinsley's 108 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying the Correctional Defendants' 92 MOTION for Summary Judgment with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies and Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Ferguson and Chaffin, but otherwise granting their motion with respect to Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claims against Akers, Hendricks, and Littlejohn; further denying Vallandingham's 97 MOTION for Summary Judgment with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, but otherwise granting her motion; finally, to the extent that Plaintiff's 102 response document is also deemed to be a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff's behalf, the Court DENIES that motion; this matter remains referred to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. Signed by Judge Robert C. Chambers on 3/3/2022. (cc: to all counsel of record and any unrepresented parties) (mkw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Murphy v. Akers et al Doc. 109 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION CHARLES EDWARD MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-0409 CORPORAL AKERS; SGT. FERGESON; CORPORAL HENDRICKS; ASHLEY VALLANDINGHAM; COI TAYLOR LITTLEJOHN and COI SHAN CHAFFIN, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this Court of proposed findings of fact and recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The Magistrate Judge has submitted Findings of Fact and recommended that the Court deny the Correctional Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 92) with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Ferguson and Chaffin, but otherwise grant their motion with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Akers, Hendricks, and Littlejohn. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court deny Vallandingham’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 97) with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, but otherwise grant her motion. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s Dockets.Justia.com response document (ECF No. 102) is also deemed to be a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s behalf, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the Court deny that motion. No objections to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendation have been filed. Accordingly, the Court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and, consistent with the findings and recommendation, DENIES the Correctional Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 92) with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Ferguson and Chaffin, but otherwise GRANTS their motion with respect to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims against Akers, Hendricks, and Littlejohn. Further, the Court DENIES Vallandingham’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 97) with respect to the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies, but otherwise GRANTS her motion. Finally, to the extent that Plaintiff’s response document (ECF No. 102) is also deemed to be a motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s behalf, the Court DENIES that motion. This mater remains referred to the Magistrate Judge for additional proceedings. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties. ENTER: March 3, 2022 ROBERT C. CHAMBERS 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.
