Barbara Joy Hoff v. Sheriff Todd Forbes, et al.

United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia · March 19, 2026 · No. 1:25-cv-32

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia adopted a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation and granted defendants’ motions to dismiss Barbara Joy Hoff’s Second Amended Complaint. The court overruled Hoff’s objections, concluding that the cited West Virginia statute did not impose the alleged duties on the county defendants and that the mineral interests conveyed to Hoff constituted real estate but not surface estates. The action was dismissed with prejudice, and the case was stricken from the court’s active docket.

Holdings

  1. Plaintiff was not entitled to an oral hearing before the magistrate judge made findings and recommendations on the written record because the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permit motions to be submitted and determined on briefs, and Plaintiff had opportunities to present her position in briefing and objections.
  2. West Virginia Code § 11-22-6 does not require a County Sheriff or County Assessor to maintain mineral interests on a county tax map and therefore did not create a claim against Defendants Forbes or Musick on the allegations presented.
  3. Plaintiff failed to state a claim because mineral interests are real property interests, and the deeds conveyed the mineral interests Plaintiff purchased through the ad valorem tax sales even though they did not convey the surface estate.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Plaintiff was entitled to a hearing before the magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation on the motions to dismiss.
  2. Whether West Virginia Code § 11-22-6 imposed duties on the County Sheriff or County Assessor that supported Plaintiff's claims concerning map numbers, parcel numbers, and mineral interests.
  3. Whether Plaintiff stated a claim against the Deputy Commissioner based on the allegation that the deeds conveyed mineral interests rather than surface estates.
  4. Whether the magistrate judge's report and recommendation should be adopted under the applicable de novo and clear-error standards.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (10)

  • Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007)(followed)
  • Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th Cir. 1983)(followed)
  • Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005)(followed)
  • Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F. Supp. 2d 723, 730 (S.D. W. Va. 2009)(followed)
  • Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)(followed)
  • Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012)(followed)
  • Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Venable Royalty, LTD v. EQT Prod. Co., 250 W. Va. 764, 768, 908 S.E.2d 501, 505 (Ct. App. 2024)(followed)
  • Manufacturers' Light & Heat Co. v. Knapp, 102 W. Va. 308, 135 S.E. 1 (1926)(followed)
  • Faith United Methodist Church & Cemetery of Terra Alta v. Morgan, 745 S.E.2d 461, 480-81 (W. Va. 2013)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…