Cheryl A. Eifert
How Judge Eifert rules, drawn from 5 signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
Judge Eifert no longer sits on this court. This profile is preserved as a historical record of how they ruled here.
About Judge Eifert
Cheryl A. Eifert served as a United States Magistrate Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia in Huntington from 2010 until her retirement in 2024. Before joining the court, she practiced civil litigation in Huntington. She earned degrees from Miami University and the Ohio State University College of Law.
How Judge Eifert decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
In denying a defendant's motion to keep environmental survey data confidential, she reasoned that data prepared to satisfy regulatory-compliance obligations (not developed for a competitive business purpose) does not qualify as protectable confidential commercial information, and that a mere assertion of 'competitive advantage' without a specific, articulated showing of harm fails to establish good cause for a protective order.
“Mr. Willson does not explain the nature of the ‘competitive advantage’ resulting from the surveys and, more importantly, provides no support for a claim that Alex Energy would suffer serious harm to its competitive and financial position if the data was released.”
She applies the Fourth Circuit's liberal Rule 15 policy in favor of resolving cases on the merits, granting a pro se prisoner's motion to amend and add defendants as to each proposed defendant whose personal involvement was plausibly alleged, while declining to add defendants the complaint tied only to a supervisory or official-capacity theory without an underlying constitutional violation.
“This liberal rule gives effect to the federal policy in favor of resolving cases on their merits instead of disposing of them on technicalities.”
Procedural preferences
In Chafin v. Berryhill, Eifert granted the Commissioner's unopposed motion to remand a Social Security appeal for further administrative proceedings under sentence six of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g).
“MEMORANDUM OPINION granting the defendant's MOTION for Remand; the Court REMANDS Plaintiff's case to the Commissioner pursuant to the sixth sentence of 42 U.S.C. Section 405(g) for further proceedings as outlined in the unopposed motion.”
Cautions
In Scoti Hutchison Enterprises, Inc. v. Cranberry Pipeline Corporation, she granted discovery-related sanctions but reduced the requested $19,493.32 to $10,648.10 after deducting redundant attorney fees, lunch expenses, and fees for reviewing a pipeline file.
“Overall, deducting $2,800 in redundant attorney's fees and $45.22 in lunch expenses related to the 30(b)(6) deposition, as well as another $6,000 in attorney's fees related to reviewing the pipeline file from the claimed total of $19,493.32, the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of Ten Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Ten Cents ($10,648.10).”
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“After a careful consideration of the evidence of record, the Court finds that the Commissioner's decision IS supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, by Judgment Order entered this day, the final decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this matter is DISMISSED from the docket of this Court.”
“Defendants' Motion for Protective Order (ECF No. 33) is DENIED”
“Defendants' Motions to Seal (ECF Nos. 31, 34) are DENIED”
“the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel and GRANTS Plaintiffs motion for sanctions as set forth below”
“the Court finds that Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of attorneys' fees and costs in the total amount of Ten Thousand Six Hundred Forty-Eight Dollars and Ten Cents ($10,648.10). Defendants are ORDERED to pay Plaintiff this amount within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.”
“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Motion, in part, as it applies to some of the proposed defendants. The remaining defendants are addressed in the Proposed Findings & Recommendations filed contemporaneously with this Memorandum Opinion and Order.”
“Pending before the court is Coloplast Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss on the Pleadings [ECF No. 11]. ... For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.”
Caseload & timing
From public federal docket records for this judge.
Median motion-to-ruling time: 33.0 days (N = 17).
- Consistent with her role as a Huntington-division consent-jurisdiction magistrate judge, the bulk of her caseload was Social Security disability appeals decided under 28 U.S.C.
- Section 636(c) party consent. She also handled general civil matters referred to her for discovery management or decided by full party consent, including consumer-protection, insurance, ERISA, and real-property disputes, discovery in multidistrict products-liability proceedings, and criminal duty-magistrate matters such as search-warrant and pen-register applications, initial appearances, and detention hearings.
Pending matters in the official report
Judge Eifert was last listed in the Civil Justice Reform Act report as of September 30, 2024.
| 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 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 Eifert 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.