Hoff v. Sheriff Todd Forbes et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BARBARA JOY HOFF,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-32
SHERIFF TODD FORBES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 58], GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
DISMISS [ECF NOS. 40, 42], AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
AMENDED COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 29]
I. 	BACKGROUND AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On 	April 	4, 	2025, 	Plaintiff 	Barbara 	Joy 	Hoff 	filed 	a 	pro 	se
complaint against Defendants Sheriff Todd Forbes (“Forbes”), Mark
Musick 	(“Musick”), 	and 	G. 	Russell 	Rollyson, 	Jr., 	Deputy
Commissioner 	of 	Delinquent 	and 	Non-Entered 	Lands 	(“Deputy
Commissioner”). 	ECF 	No. 	1. 	Pursuant 	to 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636 	and 	the
local 	rules, 	the 	Court 	referred 	the 	action 	to 	United 	States
Magistrate 	Judge 	Michael 	J. 	Aloi 	(the 	“Magistrate 	Judge”) 	for
initial 	review. 	ECF 	No. 	5. 	Plaintiff 	ultimately 	filed 	a 	Second
Amended 	Complaint 	[ECF 	No. 	29] 	on 	May 	12, 	2025.1 	In 	the 	Second
Amended Complaint, Plaintiff complains that she was not given the
1 Though Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint without leave of
Court or written consent of the parties [see Fed. R. Civ. P. 15], the
Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	magistrate 	judge’s 	decision 	to 	accept 	this 	as 	the
operative 	pleading 	considering 	Plaintiff’s 	pro 	se 	status 	and 	that
Defendants did not raise this issue in their motions to dismiss.
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
correct 	map 	numbers 	or 	parcel 	numbers 	for 	17 	properties 	she
purchased 	in 	2014, 	through 	ad 	valorem 	real 	estate 	tax 	liens. 	She
alleges 	that 	the 	Defendants 	failed 	to 	properly 	convey 	these
properties 	to 	her 	because 	she 	does 	not 	know 	the 	addresses 	and
locations of the 17 properties. ECF No. 29.
On 	May 	23, 	2025, 	Forbes 	and 	Musick 	moved 	to 	dismiss 	the
operative Complaint. ECF No. 40. The Deputy Commissioner similarly
filed 	a 	motion 	to 	dismiss 	on 	May 	27, 	2025. 	ECF 	No. 	42. 	Plaintiff
filed 	responses 	in 	opposition 	on 	June 	3, 	2025. 	ECF 	Nos. 	49,50.
Forbes 	and 	Musick 	replied 	in 	further 	support 	of 	their 	motion 	on
June 	6, 	2025. 	ECF 	No. 	52. 	On 	September 	15, 	2025, 	the 	Magistrate
Judge 	entered 	a 	Report 	and 	Recommendation 	(“R&R”) 	[ECF 	No. 	58],
recommending 	the 	Court 	dismiss 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended
Complaint 	[ECF 	No. 	29] 	with 	prejudice 	and 	grant 	the 	Defendants’
respective 	motions 	to 	dismiss 	[ECF 	Nos. 	40, 	42], 	among 	other
things. ECF No. 58.
The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14) days
from 	the 	date 	of 	service 	of 	the 	R&R 	to 	file 	“specific 	written
objections 	identifying 	the 	portions 	of 	the 	Report 	and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such
objection.” 	It further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely
file objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review
by 	the 	District 	Court 	and 	a 	waiver 	of 	appellate 	review 	by 	the
Circuit 	Court 	of 	Appeals.” 	Id. 	at 	p. 	14. 	Plaintiff 	accepted
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
service 	of 	the 	R&R 	on 	September 	22, 	2025 	[ECF 	No. 	59] 	and
subsequently filed timely objections to the R&R on October 7, 2025.
II. 	OBJECTIONS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff raises three primary objections or issues: (1) she
claims 	she 	was 	denied 	Due 	Process 	because 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge
entered 	the 	R&R 	without 	a 	hearing; 	(2) 	she 	objects 	to 	the
conclusion 	that 	she 	failed 	to 	state 	a 	claim 	for 	relief; 	and 	(3)
the Defendants engaged in fraud because she does not have physical
possession of her property. ECF No. 60. When reviewing a magistrate
judge’s 	R&R, 	the 	Court 	must 	review 	de 	novo 	only 	the 	portions 	to
which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
Otherwise, 	“the 	Court 	may 	adopt, 	without 	explanation, 	any 	of 	the
magistrate 	judge’s 	recommendations” 	to 	which 	there 	are 	no
objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603–
04 	(N.D.W. 	Va. 	2007) 	(citing 	Camby 	v. 	Davis, 	718 	F.2d 	198, 	199
(4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation
to 	which 	no 	objection 	has 	been 	made 	unless 	they 	are 	clearly
erroneous. 	See 	Diamond 	v. 	Colonial 	Life & Accident 	Ins. 	Co., 	416
F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
“When a party does make objections, but these objections are
so 	general 	or 	conclusory 	that 	they 	fail 	to 	direct 	the 	district
court to any specific error by the magistrate judge, de novo review
is 	unnecessary.” 	Green 	v. 	Rubenstein, 	644 	F. 	Supp. 	2d 	723, 	730
(S.D. 	W. 	Va. 	2009) 	(emphasis 	added) 	(citing 	Orpiano 	v. 	Johnson,
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
687 	F.2d 	44, 	47 	(4th 	Cir. 	1982)). 	“When 	only 	a 	general 	objection
is made to a portion of a magistrate judge’s report-recommendation,
the 	Court 	subjects 	that 	portion 	of 	the 	report-recommendation 	to
only 	a 	clear 	error 	review.” 	Williams 	v. 	New 	York 	State 	Div. 	of
Parole, 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012).
A 	party 	waives 	any 	objection 	to 	an 	R&R 	that 	lacks 	adequate
specificity. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758,
766 	(2d 	Cir. 	2002) 	(finding 	that 	a 	party’s 	objections 	to 	the
magistrate 	judge’s 	R&R 	were 	not 	specific 	enough 	to 	preserve 	the
claim 	for 	review). 	Bare 	statements 	“devoid 	of 	any 	reference 	to
specific findings or recommendations . . . and unsupported by legal
authority, [are] not sufficient.” Mario, 313 F.3d at 766. Pursuant
to 	the 	Federal 	Rules 	of 	Civil 	Procedure 	and 	this 	Court’s 	Local
Rules, “referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments
does not constitute an adequate objection.” Id.; see also Fed. R.
Civ. P. 72(b).
First, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Due Process Objection
because she is not entitled to a hearing before the Court rules on
the pending motions. “By rule or order, the court may provide for
submitting 	and 	determining 	motions 	on 	briefs, 	without 	oral
hearings.” 	Fed. 	R. 	Civ. 	P. 	78; 	see 	LR 	Civ 	P 	78.01. 	Plaintiff 	was
provided 	an 	opportunity 	to 	be 	heard 	through 	her 	briefings 	to 	the
Magistrate Judge, and again through her objections to this Court.
Accordingly, 	this 	objection 	is 	OVERRULED 	because 	the 	Magistrate
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
Judge did not err by making his findings and recommendations based
on the written record without a hearing.
Second, 	Plaintiff 	objects 	to 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	finding
that she failed to state a claim for relief and a basis under law
because she is seeking performance of the 17 contracts and asserts
that the Defendants have acted fraudulently. ECF No. 60. Plaintiff
contends that the Defendants were legally obligated to provide the
address, map number and parcel number of the property sold to her
on 	the 	“State 	Tax 	Commissioner 	of 	West 	Virginia 	Sales 	Listing
Form”, citing W.Va. Code § 11-22-6 et seq. Id.
West Virgina Code § 11-22-6 provides in pertinent part:
In 	all 	cases 	the 	forms 	shall 	require 	the 	tax
map 	and 	parcel 	number 	of 	the 	property, 	the
district 	or 	municipality 	in 	which 	the 	real
property or the greater portion thereof lies,
the address of the property, the consideration
or 	value 	in 	money, 	including 	any 	other
valuable 	goods 	or 	services, 	upon 	which 	the
buyer and seller agree to consummate the sale,
and any other financing arrangements affecting
value.
W. Va. Code § 11-22-6.
The above cited statute sets forth certain duties of the clerk
of 	the 	county 	commission 	and 	the 	tax 	commissioner 	and 	relates 	to
the 	tax 	lien 	process. 	See 	Id. 	Section 	11-22-6 	does 	not 	require 	a
County Sheriff (Defendant Forbes) or a County Assessor (Defendant
Musick) 	to 	maintain 	mineral 	interests 	on 	a 	county 	tax 	map. 	Thus,
this cited language does not create a claim against either of these
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Defendants.
Furthermore, 	the 	record 	before 	the 	Court 	provides 	that
Plaintiff received all of the information available to her on the
county 	level. 	She 	complains 	in 	her 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	that
the 	17 	properties 	were 	not 	deeded 	to 	her 	and 	that 	she 	wanted 	to
know whether the properties were “land or minerals, or both.” The
records 	provided 	by 	the 	parties 	show 	that 	the 	mineral 	interests
were deeded to Plaintiff and she has been assessed property taxes
on the mineral interests for a number of years. Thus, Plaintiffs’
claims against Defendants Forbes and Musick fail to state a claim
upon 	which 	relief 	can 	be 	granted 	because 	they 	do 	not 	play 	a 	role
in the State’s tax lien process and Plaintiff was provided all the
information 	available 	on 	the 	county 	level, 	including 	Mineral 	ID
numbers. 	Thus, 	Plaintiffs’ 	objections 	to 	the 	R&R 	as 	they 	pertain
to Defendants Forbes and Musick are OVERRULED.
Third, as for Plaintiff’s claims against Deputy Commissioner
Rollyson, 	these 	similarly 	fail 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Evidence
12(b)(6). 	Paragraph 	Four 	of 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint
states 	that 	the 	Deputy 	Commissioner 	had 	an 	obligation 	to 	convey
the properties to her by deed, including the correct map and parcel
numbers. 	ECF 	No. 	29. 	Thereafter, 	in 	her 	objections, 	Plaintiff
asserts the Deputy Commissioner engaged in fraud because he agreed
by contract “to sell real estate (not just minerals).” ECF No. 60
(emphasis 	in 	original). 	She 	asserts 	that 	the 	deeds 	are 	thus
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
deceptive, if they are only for minerals. Id.
Plaintiff’s argument fails because mineral interests are real
estate. 	“[I]t 	has 	been 	well 	settled 	in 	West 	Virginia 	that 	an
interest 	in 	oil 	and 	gas 	in 	place 	is 	a 	real 	property 	interest.”
Venable 	Royalty, 	LTD 	v. 	EQT 	Prod. 	Co., 	250 	W. 	Va. 	764, 	768, 	908
S.E.2d 501, 505 (Ct. App. 2024); see Syl Pt., Manufacturers’ Light
& 	Heat 	Co. 	v. 	Knapp, 	102 	W. 	Va. 	308, 	135 	S.E. 	1 	(1926) 	(“Oil 	and
gas 	in 	place 	is 	real 	estate”). 	Thus, 	the 	deeds 	at 	issue 	are 	real
estate 	but 	are 	not 	surface 	estate 	deeds; 	Plaintiff 	does 	not 	own
the 	land 	above 	her 	mineral 	interests.2 	Thus, 	she 	was 	conveyed
through 	deed 	the 	interests 	she 	purchased 	through 	ad 	valorem 	tax
sales. 	Furthermore, 	to 	the 	extent 	Plaintiff 	argues 	the 	Sales
Listing 	Forms 	were 	not 	filled 	out 	completely, 	W. 	Va. 	Code 	§ 	11-
22-6 	provides 	“[t]hat 	the 	filing 	with 	the 	clerk 	of 	a 	duplicate
deed 	containing 	the 	sales 	listing 	form 	information 	required 	by
this 	section 	shall 	also 	satisfy 	the 	requirements 	of 	this 	section
regarding 	the 	sales 	listing 	form.” 	As 	such 	this 	argument
additionally 	fails 	because 	the 	deeds 	were 	filed 	in 	Monongalia
County 	and 	included 	the 	sales 	listing 	information 	such 	as 	the
property descriptions and the last owners. For these reasons, the
2 The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has held that “the word
‘surface,’ when used in an instrument of conveyance, generally means the
exposed 	area 	of 	land, 	improvements 	on 	the 	land, 	and 	any 	part 	of 	the
underground 	actually 	used 	by 	a 	surface 	owner 	as 	an 	adjunct 	to 	surface
use.” Faith United Methodist Church & Cemetery of Terra Alta v. Morgan,
745 S.E.2d 461, 480–81 (W. Va. 2013).
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R as they pertain
to Deputy Commissioner Rollyson.
The Court reviewed the remainder of the R&R for clear error
and found none.
III. CONCLUSION
For 	these 	reasons, 	the 	Court 	ADOPTS 	the 	R&R 	in 	its 	entirety
[ECF 	No. 	58] 	and 	OVERRULES 	Plaintiff’s 	objections 	[ECF 	No. 	60].
Defendants’ 	Motions 	to 	Dismiss 	the 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	[ECF
Nos. 40, 42] are GRANTED. All other pending motions are DENIED AS
MOOT. 	Plaintiff’s 	Second 	Amended 	Complaint 	is 	DISMISSED 	WITH
PREJUDICE and the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this case from
the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The 	Clerk 	shall 	transmit 	copies 	of 	this 	Order 	to 	counsel 	of
record 	via 	email 	and 	the 	pro 	se 	Plaintiff 	via 	certified 	mail,
return receipt requested.
DATED: March 19, 2026
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 1:25-cv-00032-TSK-MJA Document 62 Filed 03/19/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>