Johnson v. W.V. DCR et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WHEELING DIVISION
MATHIS EUGENE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Case No.: 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR
LT. TIBBS and
DONALD TRUMP,
Defendants.
PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Pending before the Court are several motions filed by Plaintiff to amend or
otherwise correct the operative Amended Complaint. (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 49, 51).
I. 	Relevant Procedural History
Plaintiff instituted this action by filing a State Civil Rights Complaint Pursuant to
42 U.S.C. § 1983 on March 13, 2025, stating various claims against certain governmental
actors and entities related to Plaintiff’s arrest and subsequent incarceration at North
Central Regional Jail and Correctional Facility (“NCRJ”) and Salem Correctional Center
and Jail (“SCC”). (ECF No. 1). On June 5, 2025, Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone
issued his Report and Recommendation, recommending that Plaintiff’s claims Two
through Eight, as well as all claims against then-Defendants West Virginia Division of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“WVDCR”), the Owner of NCRJ, and the United States
Government be dismissed, leaving only Claim One against Defendant Tibbs remaining.
(ECF No. 17). That recommendation was adopted over Plaintiff’s objections on June 17,
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 53 Filed 03/04/26 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
2025. (ECF No. 21). Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal of the Order adopting the Report
and Recommendation on July 7, 2025. (ECF No. 31).
On July 14, 2025, while his appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed his first Letter-Form
Motion to Amend/Correct the Complaint, seeking to add new defendants, including
President Donald Trump. (ECF No. 26). On July 16, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to
file an Amended Complaint no later than August 13, 2025, in order to determine whether
he had a cognizable claim against President Trump. (ECF No. 27).
Plaintiff filed the now operative Amended Complaint on July 28, 2025, which
contains only allegations against Donald Trump, in his role as President of the United
States. (ECF No. 30). The following month, on August 29, 2025, Plaintiff moved to amend
or correct the Amended Complaint, seeking to add Magistrate Judge Mazzone and
District Judge Bailey as defendants “for being malice and frivolous towards [him]” in their
rulings in this lawsuit. (ECF No. 39). On September 8, 2025, Plaintiff filed another Motion
to Amend/Correct the Amended Complaint, in which he asks to add the West Virginia
Board of Education (“WVBOE”) or the Governor and/or State of West Virginia to his
lawsuit. (ECF No. 40). According to Plaintiff, the State and/or the WVBOE placed Plaintiff
in behavior classes as a child, which he contends was cruel and unusual punishment and
resulted in his current life path. See id.
On September 17, 2025, the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief United States District
Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, was designated and assigned to this case,
(ECF No. 41), and the matter was referred to the undersigned under 28 U.S.C. § 636(a)–
(c), (ECF No. 42). After the reassignment of this case, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit entered its order and mandate dismissing Plaintiff’s appeal for failure to
prosecute. (ECF Nos. 44, 45).
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 53 Filed 03/04/26 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
On January 13, 2026, Plaintiff again moved to amend or correct the Amended
Complaint, requesting that the WVDOC and an entity that Plaintiff merely refers to as
“MA” be added as defendants for an invasion of privacy claim based on video surveillance
at state jails. (ECF No. 49). On February 3, 2026, he refiled his January 13, 2026, motion
anew. (ECF No. 51). To-date, no Defendants have appeared. Plaintiff’s motions are ripe
for adjudication.
II. 	Standard of Review
Under Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, “leave to amend a
pleading shall be freely given ‘when justice so requires.’ ” Johnson v. Oroweat Foods Co.,
785 F.2d 503, 509 (4th Cir. 1986). Our Court of Appeals has “interpreted Rule 15(a) to
provide that ‘leave to amend a pleading should be denied only when the amendment
would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the
moving party, or the amendment would be futile.’ ” Laber v. Harvey, 438 F.3d 404, 426
(4th Cir. 2006) (citing Johnson, 785 F.2d at 509). A proposed amendment is futile when
it is “clearly insufficient or frivolous on its face.” Save Our Sound OBX, Inc. v. N. Carolina
Dep't of Transp., 914 F.3d 213, 228 (4th Cir. 2019) (quoting Johnson, 785 F.2d at 510).
“A proposed amendment is also futile if the claim it presents would not survive a motion
to dismiss.” Id. (citing Perkins v. United States, 55 F.3d 910, 917 (4th Cir. 1995)); see also
Frank M. McDermott, Ltd. v. Moretz, 898 F.2d 418, 420–21 (4th Cir. 1990) (noting that
courts may “disallow[ ] an amendment when the claim sought to be pleaded by
amendment plainly would be subject to a motion to dismiss”).
Courts are required to liberally construe filings by pro se parties, holding them to
a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97,
106 (1976); Loe v. Armistead, 582 F.2d 1291, 1295 (4th Cir. 1978). Nonetheless, pro se
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 53 Filed 03/04/26 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
parties must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See McNeil v. United
States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993) (“[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in
ordinary civil litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those who
proceed without counsel.”).
III. 	Analysis
At this stage of the litigation, the undersigned finds no undue delay or prejudice in
Plaintiff’s filing. No defendants have appeared, and no discovery has been completed.
However, upon review of Plaintiff’s proposed amendment, the undersigned finds that the
requested amendments would be futile. Plaintiff’s letter-form motions seek to add new
party defendants and contain various vague allegations of wrongdoing without providing
factual support for any legal claims. Even construing the pleadings liberally, the motions
fall far short of even the most “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action”
that would be themselves be insufficient to state a claim for relief. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009). Thus, the claims Plaintiff proposes could not survive a
motion to dismiss and are clearly insufficient on their face. See Save Our Sound OBX,
Inc., 914 F.3d at 228.
Additionally, the proposed amendments do not arise from the same transaction or
occurrence set forth in the operative pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(1)(B). The allegations
do not involve the same operative facts, and allowing the proposed amendments would
alter the fundamental nature of the claims already before the Court. Therefore, the
appropriate path for Plaintiff to bring the claims he proposes would be through the filing
of separate lawsuits, not amending the operative Amended Complaint here.
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 53 Filed 03/04/26 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
I. 	Proposal and Recommendations
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned respectfully RECOMMENDS that the
presiding District Judge DENY Plaintiff’s Motions to Amend/Correct the Amended
Complaint (ECF Nos. 39, 40, 39, 51).
The parties are notified that this “Proposed Findings and Recommendations” is
hereby FILED, and a copy will be submitted to the Honorable Frank W. Volk, Chief
United States District Judge. Pursuant to the provisions of Title 28, United States Code,
Section 636(b)(1)(B), and Rules 6(d) and 72(b), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
parties shall have fourteen days (filing of objections) and three days (if received by mail)
from the date of filing this “Proposed Findings and Recommendations” within which to
file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the
“Proposed Findings and Recommendations” to which objection is made and the basis of
such objection. Extension of this time period may be granted by the presiding District
Judge for good cause shown. Failure to file written objections as set forth above shall
constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review
by the Circuit Court of Appeals. Snyder v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363 (4th Cir. 1989);
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985);
United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984). Copies of such objections shall be
provided to the opposing party, Judge Volk, and Magistrate Judge Reeder.
The Clerk is instructed to provide a copy of this “Proposed Findings and
Recommendations” to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
FILED: 	March 4, 2026
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 53 Filed 03/04/26 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:
<pageID>