Moss v. Salmon

• Court: District Court, W.D. Virginia
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: 7:23-cv-00110
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

FILED October 09, 2025 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAURA A. AUSTIN, CLERK FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA __ sy: iA. Beeson ROANOKE DIVISION DEPUTY CLERK KEITH E. MOSS, ) Plaintiff, ) Case No. 7:23-cv-00110 ) ) By: Michael F. Urbanski JOSHUA SALMON, et al., ) Senior United States District Judge Defendants. ) ORDER Keith E. Moss, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 40 current and former employees of the Blue Ridge Regional Jail Authority. By previous order, United States Magistrate Judge Joel C. Hoppe denied Moss’s motion for extension of time to file an amended complaint. ECF No. 209. The case is now before the court on Moss’s “motion for relief’ from that order. ECF No. 210. For the following reasons, the motion is DENIED. Moss’s objection to the magistrate judge’s order is governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). Under this rule, the court “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Under the “clearly erroneous” standard, “[a] district court should reverse a magistrate judge’s decision . . . only if the district court is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.” Marks v. Global Mortg, Grp., Inc., 218 F.R.D. 492, 495 (S.D.W. Va. 2003). “An order is contrary to law when it fails to apply or misapplies relevant statutes, case law, or rules of procedure.” In re Eli Lilly & Co. v.

Novartis Pharma AG, 580 F. Supp. 3d 334, 337 (E.D. Va. 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Having reviewed the record, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s decision to deny an extension of time was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. As the magistrate judge noted in his decision, the deadline for filing an amended complaint expired more than 40 days before Moss requested an extension of time, and he failed to explain why he waited so long to request an extension. Additionally, at the time the magistrate judge denied the motion for extension of time, Moss had not submitted a proposed amended complaint. He still has not done so, and the pending objection provides no indication as what specific amendments Moss seeks to make. While Moss expresses the belief that he has been unlawfully detained for more than four years, his status as an incarcerated litigant does not justify further delay in the resolution of this case. For these reasons, the court concludes that the magistrate judge’s decision to deny Moss’s motion for extension of time was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Accordingly, Moss’s motion for relief from the magistrate judge’s order, ECF No. 210, is DENIED. It is so ORDERED. Entered: October 9, 2025 Michael F. Urbanski U.S. District Judge 2025.10.09 09:56:07 -04'00' Michael F. Urbanski Senior United States District Judge