Young v. FCI Beckley

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: September 29, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-00107
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

TYRONE YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00107

HECKARD, WARDEN HOZALPFEL, WARDEN YOUNG, HSA MALISSA CRAWFORD, AHSA PUGH, PA JOE COOPER, DR. EDWARDS, Clinical Director, DR. LANE, AW HOWELL, PA JARREL, PA HUTCHINSON, UNIT MANAGER STENNETT, UNIT MANAGER STAPLES, COUNSELOR BURDETTE, COUNSELOR MILAM, CASE MANAGER HARLESS, NURSE TILLEY, DR. WHITED, Psychology, DR. ADKINS, Psychology, A. HONAKER, Pharmacist, HIGLEY, RN, and HSA B. L. FAIN,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending are Plaintiff Tyrone Young’s Appeal of Magistrate Judge Order, [ECF 52], and Motion to Stay the Proceedings [ECF 53]. On August 19, 2025, the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, denied Mr. Young’s Motion for Reconsideration, [ECF 41], and Motion to Appoint Counsel, [ECF 47, 49]. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) provides that when a magistrate judge adjudicates a non-dispositive pretrial matter, a party may object to that ruling within 14 days after being served with a copy of the decision. The district judge must then consider the objections and

“may modify or set aside any portion of a magistrate judge’s non-dispositive ruling ‘where it has been shown that the magistrate judge’s order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.’” Berman v. Cong. Towers Ltd. P’ship-Section I, 325 F. Supp. 2d 590, 592 (D. Md. 2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). “The ‘clearly erroneous’ standard applies to factual findings, while legal conclusions will be rejected if they are ‘contrary to law.’” Sky Angel U.S., LLC v. Discovery Commc’ns, LLC, 28 F. Supp. 3d 465, 479 (D. Md. 2014) (quoting MMI Prods. v. Long, 231 F.R.D. 215, 218 (D. Md. 2005)). A court’s “finding is ‘clearly erroneous’ when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court is nevertheless left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has

been committed.” United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 365 (1948); see also Harman v. Levin, 722 F.2d 1150, 1152 (4th Cir. 1985). Matthews v. Island Operating Company, Inc., No. 5:18CV97, 2019 WL 313194, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Jan. 24, 2019) (citing Detection Sys., Inc. v. Pittway Corp., 96 F.R.D. 152, 154 (W.D.N.Y. 1982); Shoop v. Hott, No. 5:08CV188, 2010 WL 5067567, at *2 (N.D. W. Va. Dec. 6, 2010)). Mr. Young’s appeal fails to identify any component of Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn’s rulings that are either clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is, accordingly, ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s challenged orders are AFFIRMED. Furthermore, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion to Stay the Proceedings [ECF 53]. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this written opinion and order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: September 29, 2025

| ag Z.NMVa De ey Frank W. Volk “name Chief United States District Judge