Database Search Result Details
|
First Name
|
Robert
|
|
Last Name
|
Tate, Jr.
|
|
Decision Date
|
5/18/2017
|
|
Docket Number
|
2017-1184-MAPSDEF
|
|
ALJ
|
SLB
|
|
Respondent
|
Division of Corrections/Parkersburg Correctional Center
|
|
Employment Type
|
State
|
|
Job Title
|
Counselor 1
|
|
Topics
|
Default
|
|
Primary Issues
|
Whether Grievant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to entry of default judgment.
|
|
Outcome
|
Default Denied
|
|
Statutes
|
W. Va. Code § 6C-2-4(a)(2); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(b)(1); W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(k)
|
|
Related Cases
|
Dunlap v. Dep't of Envtl. Protection, Docket No. 2008-0808-DEP (Dec. 8, 2008); Harless v. W. Va. State Police, Docket No. 07-WVSP-080D (Mar. 21, 2008); Ferrell & Marcum v. Reg'l Jail & Corr. Fac. Auth./ Western Reg'l Jail, Docket No. 2013-1005-CONS (June 4, 2013); Wendling v. W. Va. Real Estate Comm'n, Docket No. 94-REC-514 (May 16, 1996)
|
|
Keywords
|
Default; Level One Hearing; Level One Decision; Timely Issued; Discovery
|
|
Intermediate Court of Appeals
|
|
|
Circuit Court
|
|
|
Supreme Court
|
|
|
Synopsis
|
Grievant filed a grievance challenging his non-selection as case manager at the Parkersburg Correctional Center. Respondent scheduled and provided a Level I hearing within ten days of receipt of the grievance, and a decision was timely issued, denying the grievance. However, Grievant requested discovery regarding the successful applicant and the interview process. The requested discovery required review and redaction and, at the Level I hearing, Respondent failed to provide Grievant with redacted copies of the responsive discovery documents. Grievant asserts he is entitled to the entry of default judgment due to the fact that Respondent did not timely respond to his discovery requests, in violation of W. Va. Code, § 6C-2-3(k). Though Respondent violated W. Va. Code § 6C-2-3(k) in failing to give Grievant copies of the discovery material that Respondent submitted to the hearing examiner at the Level I hearing, there is no authority to permit the Grievance Board to grant default judgment due to this violation. Therefore, Grievant has failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to entry of default judgment and default is denied.
|
Back to Results
Search Again