Patterson v. City of South Charleston, West Virginia et al
Plaintiff: Wayne Patterson
Defendant: City of South Charleston, West Virginia, R. T. Yeager, T. A. Bailes, A. R. Lindell and John Doe 1-7
Case Number: 2:2012cv01964
Filed: June 13, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: Charleston Office
County: Kanawha
Presiding Judge: Mary E. Stanley
Presiding Judge: John T. Copenhaver
Nature of Suit: Assault, Libel, and Slander
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Both

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 11, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 317 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying the plaintiff's 281 MOTION to alter or amend judgment. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/11/2016. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
February 11, 2016 Opinion or Order Filing 276 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting defendant Magistrate Julie Yeager's 248 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part defendants' Lieutenant R.T. Yeager, Sergeant L.S. Thomas, and Officer R.P. McFarland 249 MOT ION for Summary Judgment with respect to plaintiffs official capacity claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as set forth above, but otherwise denied; denying Plaintiff's 254 MOTION for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's 264 MOTION to strike the sworn statement of Gail Reid. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/11/2016. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmr)
December 22, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 265 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff Wayne Patterson's 257 MOTION to reconsider the court's 11/20/2015 242 Memorandum Opinion and Order denying plaintiff's fifth motion to extend discovery by 90 days. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 12/22/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
November 20, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 242 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying plaintiff's 234 FIFTH MOTION to Extend Time for Discovery for a period of 90 days. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/20/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (tmh)
November 12, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 233 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to plaintiff's 230 MOTION for Reconsideration, re: deposition of Magistrate Yeager; directing that plaintiff's motion to reconsider the court's 11/4/2015 226 order is denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/12/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
November 4, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 226 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER pursuant to plaintiff's 212 third motion to compel discovery of defendant Magistrate Julie Yeager and Motion for Sanctions, and 222 third supplemental motion to compel discovery of Magistrate Yeager; denying in f ull plaintiff's Motion to compel; granting Magistrate Yeager's 211 MOTION for Protective Order to the same extent; because sanctions are only available under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(a) to a party who substantially prevails on a motion to compel discovery, directing that plaintiff's motion to impose costs upon Magistrate Yeager is denied. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/4/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq) (Modified text on 11/4/2015 for clarity)
November 3, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 221 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 214 FOURTH MOTION by Wayne Patterson to Compel Lt. Robert Yeager to disclose his home address or the home addresses of his parents and siblings; granting 218 SECOND MOTION by R.P. McFarland, L.S. Thomas, R. T. Yeager for Protective Order to the same extent; plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct a second deposition of Lt. Yeager is granted; Lt. Yeager's motion for a protective order is denied to the same extent; denying 214 MOTION by Wayne Patterson for Sanctions. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/3/2015. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (skh)
June 10, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 163 ORDER adopting the 162 Proposed Findings and Recommendation as modified and incorporated more fully herein; granting the plaintiff's 153 Motion to amend the complaint to the extent set forth herein and otherwise denying said motion; th e Clerk is directed to docket the reformed second amended complaint, attached hereto as "Exhibit A", as the operative complaint in this action; the Clerk to prepare summonses for defendants L.S. Thomas and R.P. McFarland using those last k nown addresses, and to prepare a summons for Magistrate Julie Yeager using her address at the Kanawha County Magistrate Court; further directing the summonses and a copy of the reformed second amended complaint ("Exhibit A") shall be serve d upon each of these new defendants by certified mail, return receipt requested, with delivery restricted to the addressee; defendant R.T. Yeager's answer or other response to the reformed second amended complaint to be made within 14 days afte r electronic service of this Order and the reformed second amended complaint; defendants L.S. Thomas, R.P. McFarland and Magistrate Julie Yeager shall have 21 days from receipt of service of process to serve and file an answer or other response to the reformed second amended complaint; should delivery at the last known addresses fail, the Clerk is directed to make a second attempt to serve defendants Thomas and McFarland, under the conditions prescribed herein, using any available alternative address. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 6/10/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
March 27, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 160 ORDER adopting the 159 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge, denying Plaintiff's 146 RULE 60(b) MOTION for Relief from Summary Judgment Order and Memorandum Of Law In Support re: 40 Memorandum Opinion and Order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/27/2015. (cc: counsel of record; Magistrate Judge Tinsley; plaintiff, via certified mail, at 205 Saratoga Road, Normal, Illinois, 61761) (tmh)
January 22, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 137 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 106 Proposed Findings and Recommendation; denying defendants' 66 Motion to dismiss or, in the alternative motion for summary judgment; denying the plaintiff's 90 Motion for summary judgment; and denying the defendants' 87 Motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 1/22/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented parties) (taq)
March 29, 2013 Opinion or Order Filing 40 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the 36 Proposed Findings and Recommendation are adopted; the defendants' 15 MOTION to Dismiss is granted and the claims set forth in the original complaint are dismissed; further directing that plaintiff's 37 MOTION to Amend Complaint is granted with respect to the trespass claim and otherwise denied and the amended complaint presented on 11/5/2012 is filed as of this date. This action shall proceed only on the basis of the trespas s claim; further directing that this case is again referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for further proceedings on that claim. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/29/2013. (cc: attys; pro se plaintiff; United States Magistrate Judge) (lca)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the West Virginia Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Patterson v. City of South Charleston, West Virginia et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Wayne Patterson
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: City of South Charleston, West Virginia
Represented By: Linnsey M. Amores
Represented By: Duane J. Ruggier, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: R. T. Yeager
Represented By: Linnsey M. Amores
Represented By: Duane J. Ruggier, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: T. A. Bailes
Represented By: Linnsey M. Amores
Represented By: Duane J. Ruggier, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: A. R. Lindell
Represented By: Linnsey M. Amores
Represented By: Duane J. Ruggier, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: John Doe 1-7
Represented By: Linnsey M. Amores
Represented By: Duane J. Ruggier, II
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?