Settlement Alerts:

$9,250,000 Defamation Case Win Against The New York Times 8/26
$6,800,000 Wrongful Death 8/26
$81,000,000 Children Born Addicted (as part of the trial team)
$18,000,000 Product Liability 12/19
$13,000,000 Medical Malpractice – Sexual Assault 8/23
$225,000 Civil Litigation 7/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$30,000 Medical Malpractice 7/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$42,690 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$2,759,223 Opioid Litigation 6/26
$70,000 Medical Malpractice 6/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 6/26
$100,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$420,000 Jail Litigation 5/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$650,000 Jail Litigation 5/26
$46,937 Opioid Litigation 5/26
$150,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 5/26
$285,000 Medical Malpractice 4/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Personal Injury 3/26
$40,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$32,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$42,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 1/26
$30,000 Personal Injury 1/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 12/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 12/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$77,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$26,668 Personal Injury 9/25
$25,000 Personal Injury 9/25
$97,500 Personal Injury 9/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$100,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 8/25
$100,000 Wrongful Death 7/25
$45,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/25
$200,000 Wrongful Death 6/25
$1,200,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 6/25
$200,000 Slip & Fall 6/25
$26,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/25
$800,000 Jail Litigation 5/25
$925,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$125,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$700,000 Jail Litigation 4/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$125,000 Personal Injury 4/25
$20,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/25
$1,300,000 Jail Litigation 2/25
$210,000 Slip & Fall 2/25
$100,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/25
$975,000 Medical Malpractice 1/25
$4,000,000 Jail Litigation 1/25

$9,250,000 Defamation & False Light 8/26
$6,800,000 Wrongful Death 8/26
$81,000,000 Children Born Addicted (as part of the trial team)
$18,000,000 Product Liability 12/19
$13,000,000 Medical Malpractice – Sexual Assault 8/23
$225,000 Civil Litigation 7/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$30,000 Medical Malpractice 7/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$42,690 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/26
$2,759,223 Opioid Litigation 6/26
$70,000 Medical Malpractice 6/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 6/26
$100,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$420,000 Jail Litigation 5/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/26
$650,000 Jail Litigation 5/26
$46,937 Opioid Litigation 5/26
$150,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 5/26
$285,000 Medical Malpractice 4/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 3/26
$50,000 Personal Injury 3/26
$40,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$32,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/26
$42,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 1/26
$30,000 Personal Injury 1/26
$50,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 12/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 12/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$77,500 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 11/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$26,668 Personal Injury 9/25
$25,000 Personal Injury 9/25
$97,500 Personal Injury 9/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 9/25
$100,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 8/25
$100,000 Wrongful Death 7/25
$45,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 7/25
$200,000 Wrongful Death 6/25
$1,200,000 Wrongful Death – Jail Litigation 6/25
$200,000 Slip & Fall 6/25
$26,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/25
$800,000 Jail Litigation 5/25
$925,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 5/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$125,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$700,000 Jail Litigation 4/25
$25,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 4/25
$125,000 Personal Injury 4/25
$20,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/25
$1,300,000 Jail Litigation 2/25
$210,000 Slip & Fall 2/25
$100,000 Motor Vehicle Accident 2/25
$975,000 Medical Malpractice 1/25
$4,000,000 Jail Litigation 1/25

CALL US NOW

5-Star Google Rating•BBB Rating: A+•West Virginia State Bar•The United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia•The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals•The United States Supreme Court•American Association for Justice•Opioid Justice Team•Trial Lawyers Care•West Virginia Association for Justice•5-Star Google Rating•BBB Rating: A+•West Virginia State Bar•The United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of West Virginia•The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals•The United States Supreme Court•American Association for Justice•Opioid Justice Team•Trial Lawyers Care•West Virginia Association for Justice

Section 1983 Civil Rights Claims Lawyer in Saint Marys

Protecting Constitutional Rights

Civil Rights and Constitutional Law Overview

Section 1983 claims allow individuals to seek redress when state actors violate constitutional or federal rights, and residents of Saint Marys and Pleasants County may rely on this statute to challenge unlawful police conduct, prison conditions, or municipal policy that caused harm. In many cases these claims involve complex procedural requirements, such as timely filing deadlines, identification of the proper defendants, and proof of a deprivation of rights under the color of state law. Our discussion here explains the basics of bringing a Section 1983 claim, the types of relief available, and practical steps people can take after an incident to preserve evidence and move forward with a potential claim.

When someone believes a government employee or official has unlawfully deprived them of a constitutional right, Section 1983 provides a civil path to accountability and compensation in federal court. For people in and around Saint Marys, understanding how Section 1983 interacts with state immunities, qualified immunity doctrines, and local practices is important for assessing the viability of a claim. This introduction outlines common claim types such as excessive force, unlawful arrest, and conditions of confinement, and offers guidance on documentation, witness statements, and the importance of timely legal assessment to protect the right to pursue relief under federal law.

The Role and Benefits of Pursuing a Section 1983 Claim

Pursuing a Section 1983 claim can hold governmental actors accountable, secure compensation for injuries, and promote changes in policies or practices that led to the violation. Beyond individual remedies, successful claims can create broader public benefits by prompting training, revised procedures, or supervisory reforms that reduce future rights violations. For residents of Saint Marys and Pleasants County, accessing this remedy may be essential after encounters with law enforcement, corrections personnel, or other state actors. Understanding potential outcomes, including injunctive relief, damages, and attorney fees, helps individuals set realistic goals and make informed choices about whether to proceed.

Stephen New & Associates in West Virginia

Stephen New & Associates is a Beckley-based personal injury and civil practice serving communities throughout West Virginia, including Saint Marys and Pleasants County, offering focused civil rights representation under Section 1983 and related constitutional matters. The firm combines courtroom experience with attention to client needs, handling sensitive investigations into police conduct, jail conditions, and municipal policies. Clients can expect assistance with evidence preservation, witness interviews, federal pleading requirements, and strategic decisions about pursuing injunctive relief or damages. For a direct conversation about the facts of a case, residents may call the firm at 304-355-5565 to discuss possible avenues of relief and next steps.

Understanding Section 1983 Claims

A Section 1983 claim requires showing that a person acting under color of state law caused the deprivation of a constitutional or federal right, and it often involves examining both the actions of individuals and the policies or customs of government entities. Plaintiffs must identify the proper defendants, which may be officers, supervisors, or municipalities, and address defenses like qualified immunity that can shield individuals from liability in certain circumstances. For residents of Saint Marys, this means carefully documenting incidents, collecting contemporaneous records such as medical reports or arrest paperwork, and considering whether the conduct was a one-time incident or part of a broader policy that affected rights on multiple occasions.

Procedural elements of Section 1983 litigation include meeting statute of limitations deadlines, satisfying federal pleading standards, and often initiating discovery to expose internal policies or training records that reveal municipal liability. Claims may proceed in federal court, and plaintiffs must be prepared for a process that can include motions to dismiss, summary judgment challenges, and potential appeals. For those in Pleasants County, local court practices and the proximity to federal venues can influence strategy. Early attention to witness statements, physical evidence, and records preservation increases the likelihood of successfully pursuing relief under Section 1983.

Need More Information?

Key Terms and Plain-Language Glossary

Section 1983

Section 1983 refers to a federal statute that allows people to sue state and local government officials who violate constitutional or federal rights while acting under color of state law. In practical terms, it is the main tool for seeking civil remedies when police, corrections staff, or other government employees unlawfully deprive someone of rights such as freedom from excessive force, unlawful searches, or denial of medical care. Bringing a Section 1983 claim typically involves federal court procedures and may result in monetary damages, injunctive relief, or declaratory judgments depending on the nature of the violation and the parties involved.

Qualified Immunity

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that can protect government officials from liability for actions taken while performing their duties, unless they violated clearly established statutory or constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known. The doctrine is a frequent defense in civil rights cases and requires courts to consider whether the law was clearly established at the time of the conduct. For plaintiffs in Saint Marys, overcoming a qualified immunity defense often relies on showing well-defined precedent or on demonstrating that the official’s conduct was unreasonable in light of existing legal standards and circumstances at the scene.

Monell Liability

Monell liability refers to the legal principle that a municipality or local government entity can be held responsible under Section 1983 when a constitutional violation results from an official policy, practice, or custom, or from deliberate indifference by policymakers. It requires demonstrating that a municipal policy or failure to train or supervise employees led to the rights violation. In many cases involving Saint Marys or Pleasants County, establishing Monell liability involves careful review of training materials, disciplinary records, and patterns of prior incidents that indicate a systemic problem rather than an isolated mistake by a single employee.

Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief is a court-ordered remedy that requires a government entity or official to take specific actions or to stop certain practices that violate constitutional rights, such as changing policies, improving training, or altering procedures in detention facilities. Unlike monetary damages, injunctive relief aims to prevent future harm and can benefit a broader group beyond the individual plaintiff. For residents of Saint Marys, seeking injunctive relief may be an appropriate strategy when the primary goal is to change institutional behavior or to protect others from ongoing or repeated violations rather than to obtain compensation for past harm.

PRO TIPS

Preserve Evidence Immediately

After any incident involving possible civil rights violations, take steps to preserve evidence such as photos, videos, medical records, and the names of witnesses, and make contemporaneous notes about what occurred and when. Early preservation helps overcome later disputes about facts and supports depositions and motions in federal court, while documented medical treatment can show the extent of harm. If possible, secure copies of incident reports, correspondence, and any surveillance footage that may exist so that these materials remain available for review at the start of a claim.

Document Witness Information

Collecting contact details and statements from witnesses soon after an incident improves the credibility and availability of testimony for later proceedings, and contemporaneous witness accounts often capture observations that fade with time. Be sure to note the roles of each witness, what they saw or heard, and their relationship to the parties involved, and keep records of any subsequent contact or statements. Maintaining a secure file with this information helps when compiling a complaint, preparing for depositions, and responding to defense efforts to challenge recollections or timeline details.

Seek Timely Legal Assessment

Prompt evaluation of the facts by counsel familiar with Section 1983 procedures can identify deadlines, potential defendants, and strategic options such as seeking injunctive relief or pursuing damages, and it permits early preservation of evidence and initiation of urgent motions if required. Timely assessment also helps protect rights that might be affected by limited filing windows and ensures that constitutional claims are presented in the most effective manner from the outset. Early guidance can prevent missteps that could jeopardize a claim and improve the prospects for a favorable outcome.

Comparing Legal Paths for Rights Violations

When a Broad, Strategic Approach Is Advisable:

Multiple or Systemic Violations

A comprehensive legal approach is often necessary when the issue appears to affect multiple individuals or reflects a recurring pattern within a government agency, because isolated remedies may not address underlying policies that enable violations to continue. In such cases, pursuing Monell liability and seeking injunctive relief alongside damages can provide broader protection and encourage institutional changes. Coordinated investigation into records, training, and prior incidents is typically required to establish a pattern or practice and to support claims that reach beyond a single incident.

Complex Federal Litigation

When litigation will involve federal filing standards, qualified immunity defenses, and extensive discovery, a comprehensive strategy that anticipates motions and develops robust factual records is often necessary to protect a claimant’s position. Navigating these procedures requires coordinated legal work to draft pleadings, respond to dispositive motions, and pursue discovery into official policies and communications. This level of preparation increases the likelihood of surviving procedural challenges and advancing to merits-based resolution or settlement discussions.

When a Narrow, Focused Approach Works:

Isolated Incidents with Clear Evidence

A limited approach may be appropriate when an incident is isolated, the responsible individual is identifiable, and there is clear, contemporaneous evidence supporting the claim, making a targeted damage action the most efficient course. In such situations, focusing on a straightforward federal complaint and proof of individual liability can resolve the matter without broader municipal claims. This path typically emphasizes prompt fact gathering, preserving key records, and pursuing damages for the individual harm suffered rather than seeking sweeping institutional changes.

Desire for Swift Resolution

When a claimant’s priority is a quicker resolution and the facts are well documented, limiting the scope to a single defendant and clear legal theory can shorten litigation timelines and reduce complexity while still pursuing appropriate relief. This option may be preferable for individuals seeking to avoid protracted discovery into municipal practices and who prioritize compensation over institutional reform. Effective negotiation and a focused case file can often lead to early settlement opportunities without extensive litigation.

Common Situations That Lead to Section 1983 Claims

Alleged Excessive Force

Allegations of excessive force by law enforcement officers during arrests, traffic stops, or other encounters are a frequent basis for Section 1983 claims, particularly when injuries or authoritative misconduct are documented by medical records or video. Careful review of force reports, body camera footage, and witness statements is essential to assessing the strength of these claims and pursuing appropriate remedies under federal law.

Unlawful Arrest or Detention

Claims stemming from unlawful arrest or prolonged detention often rely on showing a lack of probable cause or detention beyond lawful bounds, and they typically examine arrest paperwork, charging records, and procedural history. Timely action to preserve records and obtain official reports improves the ability to challenge the legality of the seizure and seek damages for the resulting harm.

Conditions of Confinement

Section 1983 also addresses inhumane or dangerous conditions in jails and detention facilities, including lack of medical care or abusive treatment, and such claims often require medical documentation and facility records. Establishing these claims can lead to both individual compensation and court orders requiring corrective measures to protect those confined.

Section 1983 Representation for Saint Marys Residents

Why Choose Stephen New & Associates for Civil Rights Matters

Stephen New & Associates serves individuals across West Virginia, including Pleasants County and Saint Marys, offering assistance with Section 1983 claims and broader constitutional concerns. The firm helps clients preserve evidence, navigate federal procedural requirements, and pursue remedies ranging from injunctive relief to compensatory damages, while maintaining clear communication about case strategy and likely outcomes. For those affected by misconduct by government actors, the firm provides a local point of contact and a plan to gather facts, identify defendants, and prepare for litigation or negotiation depending on client goals.

Clients working with Stephen New & Associates can expect attentive case review and coordinated efforts to obtain necessary records, such as incident reports, training materials, and medical documentation, that support claims under Section 1983. The firm also assists with procedural tasks like drafting federal complaints, opposing immunity defenses, and pursuing discovery to uncover policies or practices that led to the violation. Individuals in Saint Marys who wish to discuss their situation can call 304-355-5565 to arrange an initial review of potential civil rights claims and next steps.

Contact Us to Discuss Your Civil Rights Claim

People Also Search For

Section 1983 claims Saint Marys

civil rights lawyer Pleasants County WV

constitutional law Saint Marys West Virginia

police misconduct claims Saint Marys

Monell claims Pleasants County

excessive force claim West Virginia

unlawful arrest lawsuit Saint Marys

conditions of confinement claim Pleasants County

Related Services

FAQS

What is a Section 1983 claim and who can bring one?

Section 1983 is a federal civil statute that allows individuals to sue state or local government officials when those officials, acting under color of state law, deprive a person of rights secured by the Constitution or federal law. Common claims arise from alleged excessive force, unlawful searches or seizures, deliberate indifference to medical needs, or retaliation for exercising protected rights. To bring a claim, a plaintiff must identify the proper defendant or defendants and show a causal connection between the government action and the constitutional injury. Not everyone can be sued under Section 1983, and actions against private actors generally do not fall under this statute unless the private party is acting as a state actor. The statute is interpreted through federal court procedures that require careful pleading, and plaintiffs should work promptly to gather evidence such as medical records, witness statements, and official reports. Early assessment of the facts helps determine whether Section 1983 is the appropriate path and clarifies possible remedies and strategies for pursuing relief.

What types of government conduct can lead to a Section 1983 lawsuit?

A wide range of government conduct can give rise to a Section 1983 lawsuit when the conduct deprives someone of constitutional or federal rights, including use of excessive force by police, unlawful arrest or detention without probable cause, denial of necessary medical care in detention settings, unlawful searches and seizures, and retaliation for protected speech or other activities. Claims also arise from conditions in jails and prisons that create a substantial risk of serious harm, or from municipal policies or failures to train that lead to rights violations across a community. Each claim requires a factual and legal showing tailored to the specific right at issue, and courts examine whether the conduct was attributable to the defendant and whether immunity defenses apply. Municipal liability claims under Monell require additional proof that a policy, custom, or deliberate indifference by policymakers caused the violation. Careful documentation and a consistent record of the incident and resulting harm are critical to establishing the elements of a viable claim.

How does qualified immunity affect a Section 1983 case?

Qualified immunity is a legal doctrine that may shield government officials from personal liability for constitutional violations unless the right violated was clearly established at the time of the conduct such that a reasonable official would have known the action was unlawful. In practice, defendants often invoke qualified immunity early in litigation through motions to dismiss or for summary judgment, and courts evaluate whether the facts, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, show a violation of a constitutional right and whether that right was clearly defined by existing precedent. Overcoming qualified immunity often requires identifying controlling case law that puts the officer on notice that the conduct was unlawful or demonstrating that the actions were so unreasonable that no similarly situated official could have believed them lawful. Building a factual record through discovery is frequently necessary to counter immunity defenses, and plaintiffs should preserve evidence that speaks directly to the circumstances and reasonableness of the officials’ conduct.

Can I sue a city or county under Section 1983?

Yes, a city or county can be sued under Section 1983, but municipal liability requires proof that a policy, custom, or official decision by a municipal policymaker caused the constitutional violation. This is commonly known as Monell liability. Plaintiffs must show more than an isolated mistake by a single employee; they must link the harm to a municipal practice, failure to train or supervise, or deliberate indifference by those responsible for policy decisions. Proving municipal liability typically involves discovery into training materials, disciplinary records, prior incidents, and internal communications that demonstrate a pattern or the municipality’s deliberate indifference. Remedies against a municipality can include damages and injunctive relief to reform policies or practices, and these claims often proceed alongside individual liability claims against officers or employees involved in the incident.

What remedies are available in a Section 1983 action?

Remedies in a Section 1983 action can include monetary damages for physical injury, emotional harm, and other losses, as well as injunctive relief that orders a government entity to change policies or practices to prevent future violations. In some cases, courts may award declaratory relief, which recognizes legal rights or clarifies that particular conduct violated the Constitution. Additionally, prevailing plaintiffs may be entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees under federal statutes in certain circumstances. The availability and amount of damages depend on the nature and severity of the violation, the identity of defendants, and applicable legal limitations, including immunities and statutory caps in some contexts. Injunctive remedies are particularly relevant when the goal is to address systemic problems, such as unsafe detention conditions or deficient training, and may benefit a broader group beyond the individual plaintiff.

How long do I have to file a Section 1983 claim in West Virginia?

The time limit to file a Section 1983 claim is governed by the statute of limitations applicable to personal injury claims in the state where the incident occurred, which in West Virginia typically means following the state’s limitations period for similar tort actions. Calculating the deadline can require careful attention to when the cause of action accrued and whether any tolling rules apply, such as for minors or when the plaintiff could not reasonably discover the injury immediately. Because missing the statute of limitations can bar a claim entirely, it is important for individuals in Saint Marys to consult promptly to determine the applicable filing window and to take immediate steps to protect their rights. Early consultation also helps identify urgent preservation measures and the proper defendant list before critical deadlines pass.

What evidence is most helpful in a civil rights claim?

Helpful evidence in a civil rights claim includes contemporaneous photographs or video of the incident, medical records documenting injuries and treatment, official reports and arrest paperwork, and written or recorded witness statements. Documents such as booking records, surveillance footage, and communications among government personnel can be particularly important in establishing what happened and who was responsible. Maintaining a careful log of dates, times, and interactions related to the incident enhances credibility and supports later testimony. Other useful materials include documentation of any complaints filed with agencies, disciplinary records if available, and records that speak to municipal policies or training. When possible, securing copies of records early prevents loss or destruction of potentially relevant evidence and strengthens the ability to respond to defenses that challenge the factual basis of the claim.

Will filing a Section 1983 claim change my criminal case?

Filing a Section 1983 claim is a civil matter and is separate from any criminal proceedings related to the same events, though the issues can overlap and developments in one forum may influence the other. For example, a criminal conviction may affect credibility or collateral issues, while a criminal case disposition may provide or limit access to certain records that are helpful in a civil claim. Plaintiffs should coordinate legal approaches to avoid actions that inadvertently prejudice either proceeding and should keep counsel informed about parallel criminal matters. Civil litigation strategies often proceed with caution when criminal matters are pending to avoid interfering with criminal defense rights, and courts may stay civil discovery in limited circumstances. Consulting with counsel early allows for planning that protects civil rights claims while respecting the separate processes and potential interactions with criminal cases.

How long does a typical Section 1983 case take to resolve?

The timeline for a Section 1983 case varies significantly based on factors such as the complexity of the factual record, the number of defendants, the extent of discovery needed, and whether the case settles or proceeds to trial. Some cases resolve through settlement after initial discovery or mediation, which can occur within months, while contested cases involving municipal liability and immunity defenses can take several years to reach trial or final judgment. Pretrial motions, appeals, and the court’s docket all influence duration. Parties can often improve the prospects for a timely resolution by preparing a solid factual record, engaging in strategic settlement discussions when appropriate, and focusing discovery on the most relevant materials. Plaintiffs should be prepared for a process that may require sustained participation and should discuss realistic timelines and milestones with counsel early in the representation.

How can I get started if I believe my rights were violated?

To begin if you believe your rights were violated, document the incident and preserve any physical or digital evidence, including photos, video, medical records, and witness information, and then contact a law firm familiar with civil rights claims to review the facts and advise on next steps. An initial consultation can clarify whether a Section 1983 claim is viable and what immediate actions are needed to protect evidence and meet filing deadlines. Providing a clear, chronological account and any documentation will help counsel evaluate the strengths of the potential claim. Early communication with counsel also allows for timely requests for records, preservation letters, and other measures that can prevent loss of key materials and prepare the case for either negotiation or litigation. Residents of Saint Marys may call Stephen New & Associates at 304-355-5565 to schedule a review of their circumstances and discuss possible remedies and procedural requirements under federal law.

All Services in

Explore our complete legal services