From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spradlin v. Rodes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION
Sep 25, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-6986 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 25, 2017)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-6986

09-25-2017

JACOB SPRADLIN, Plaintiff, v. DAVID RODES and STEVEN BOLAND, Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This action was referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, 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 Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Steven Boland (ECF No. 51) be denied as premature. Neither party has filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.

Accordingly, the Court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and, consistent with the findings and recommendations, DENIES the Motion to Dismiss of Defendant Steven Boland (ECF No. 51) as premature.

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to forward copies of this written opinion and order to all counsel of record, and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER: September 25, 2017

/s/_________

ROBERT C. CHAMBERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Spradlin v. Rodes

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION
Sep 25, 2017
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-6986 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 25, 2017)
Case details for

Spradlin v. Rodes

Case Details

Full title:JACOB SPRADLIN, Plaintiff, v. DAVID RODES and STEVEN BOLAND, Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA HUNTINGTON DIVISION

Date published: Sep 25, 2017

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-6986 (S.D.W. Va. Sep. 25, 2017)

Citing Cases

Snyder v. Lakin Corr. Ctr.

Based on the limited record before the Court, and Plaintiff's claim that she completed all steps of the…

Lacy v. Young

See Custis v. Davis, 851 F.3d 358, 361-62 (4th Cir. 2017) (discussing that it is a rare, exceptional instance…