Frederick Pfarr Stamp Jr.
How Judge Stamp rules, drawn from 17 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Stamp no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Stamp
Frederick Pfarr Stamp Jr. served on the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia after receiving his commission on July 12, 1990. He assumed senior status on November 1, 2006. The court now lists him as an inactive senior district judge.
How Judge Stamp decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a fraudulent-joinder challenge to removal, the judge required the defendant to show, by clear and convincing evidence after resolving all doubts in the plaintiff's favor, that there was no possible claim against the non-diverse party: a heavy burden, but one the insurers here met because the individual co-defendants could not conceivably be liable under any of the theories pleaded.
“This Court finds that the N&D parties were fraudulently joined in this civil action.”
A party's own discovery admissions carry real weight: once requests for admission go unanswered past the 30-day deadline, the resulting deemed admissions cannot be undone by a later affidavit or an untimely blanket denial, even where the missed deadline followed a personal tragedy.
“Default admissions that are not withdrawn or amended cannot be rebutted by affidavits entered in opposition to summary judgment nor can those admissions be ignored by the Court simply because it finds the evidence presented by the party against whom the admissions operated to be more credible.”
Procedural preferences
In Clay v. Consol Pennsylvania Coal Company, LLC, he denied default judgment after an answer was mistakenly attached to a co-defendant's docket entry and the error was promptly corrected, finding no prejudice and citing the preference for resolving disputes on their merits.
“It is well-established in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that default judgments are to be granted sparingly ... strong public policy favors resolving disputes on the merits and not by default judgment.”
On unopposed dispositive motions, the judge does not grant relief merely because no response was filed: the moving party must still affirmatively show the uncontroverted record entitles it to judgment as a matter of law.
“Hamilton's failure to file a response does not relieve the government from the burden imposed upon the moving party ... the moving party must still show the uncontroverted facts entitle the party to 'a judgment as a matter of law.'”
In Chaverra-Cardona v. Warden Al Haynes, Stamp reviewed the portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation challenged by the prisoner and adopted the recommendation in full. He denied the Section 2241 petition with prejudice after finding that the savings-clause requirements were not met.
“Because the petitioner has filed objections, this Court will undertake a de novo review as to those portions of the report and recommendation to which objections were made.”
Cautions
Section 2241 habeas petitions that attack the validity of a conviction itself, rather than the manner in which a sentence is being executed, are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction unless the petitioner can satisfy the Fourth Circuit's narrow savings-clause test: petitioners citing new arguments or 'newly discovered evidence' should confirm the underlying law has actually changed before filing.
“[T]he substantive laws under which the petitioner was convicted have not changed since the date of the petitioner's conviction such that the petitioner's conduct would no longer be deemed criminal.”
In Ammirante v. Ohio County Board of Education, Stamp dismissed hostile-work-environment claims brought by three teachers after examining each plaintiff's allegations. He found that the alleged conduct, taken as true, did not meet the severe-or-pervasive threshold required for those claims.
“[T]he facts, even when taken as true, do not demonstrate that, under the circumstances, a reasonable person in plaintiffs' positions would be significantly affected.”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“plaintiff Herbalife International, Inc.'s motion to remand is DENIED.”
“the plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to the defendant State Board.”
“it is ORDERED the petitioner's § 2241 petition be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”
“GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED to the extent that it seeks dismissal of the plaintiff's state law claims and his claim for punitive damages. The defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby DENIED to any extent that it seeks dismissal of the plaintiff's preempted federal law claims under § 301 of the LMRA or for failure to join the Union as an indispensable party.”
“the defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED”
“the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“the plaintiff's motion for default judgment is GRANTED as to the federal income tax assessments and DENIED as to the United States' request to foreclose the federal tax liens on the Martin property.”
“the defendant's motion to dismiss is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court.”
“the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against defendant Consol for failure to file an answer to the amended complaint (ECF No. 307) is DENIED.”
“the government's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The defendant, $2,000.00 in United States Currency ... is ORDERED forfeited to the United States.”
“the defendant's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.”
“the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED”
“the defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 56) is GRANTED.”
“the plaintiff's motion for extension of time to complete discovery (ECF No. 54) is DENIED.”
“the pending motions in limine (ECF Nos. 66-73) are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.”
“the petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
The sampled dockets are dominated by removed insurance and contract disputes, several of which were remanded to state court on jurisdictional grounds, along with an employment and civil-rights suit against a county school board and a mineral-rights dispute over gas-well royalties. They reflect his northern-panhandle civil caseload during his final years of receiving new case assignments.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Stamp was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2025.
| Motions pending more than six months | 0 |
| Bench trials submitted more than six months | 0 |
| Bankruptcy appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Social Security appeals pending more than six months | 0 |
| Civil cases pending more than three years | 0 |
| Report | Motions over six months | Cases over three years |
|---|---|---|
| Sep 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2025 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2024 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2023 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2022 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Mar 2021 | 0 | 0 |
| Sep 2020 | 0 | 0 |
A snapshot on that date: matters listed may since have been decided or reassigned. A motion referred to a magistrate judge is counted for both judges. Motions in multidistrict litigation, section 2255 cases and Social Security appeals are not counted, and a very large three-year count is generally a multidistrict docket. Source: Appendix A of the report (PDF); about the report.
A historical record
Judge Stamp no longer sits on this court. This profile stays available as a record of how they ruled here. If you're preparing for a matter, start from the court's current bench.