Riggs v. Wyatt et al

Filing 18

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 16 AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT 14 ORDER: The Court adopts the R&R 16 and denies without prejudice Rigg's motion for default judgment 14 . Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 10/4/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
SHILO RIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17CV17
(Judge Keeley)

WILLIAM WYATT and
JANET WYATT,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14]
On February 6, 2017, the pro se

plaintiff, Shilo Riggs

(“Riggs”), filed a complaint against the defendants, William Wyatt
and Janet Wyatt (Dkt. No. 1). Citing diversity and federal question
jurisdiction, Riggs claims that the defendants fraudulently “sued
[her] with checks they claim [she] signed.” Id. at 2. For relief,
she seeks $75,000 and an injunction ordering the defendants “to pay
the other people they’ve sued” and providing that Janet Wyatt may
no longer practice as a certified public accountant. Id. at 3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court referred
the

action

to

the

Honorable

Michael

J.

Aloi,

United

States

Magistrate Judge (Dkt. No. 4).
The defendants were served with summonses on April 17, 2017,
but they failed to plead or otherwise defend the action within 21
days. On June 1, 2017, at Magistrate Judge Aloi’s direction, the
Clerk entered default against the defendants pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 55(a) (Dkt. Nos. 10; 11). On June 16, 2017, Riggs moved for

RIGGS V. WYATT

1:17CV17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14]
default judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b), requesting that
she “be granted the $75,000 and that the defendants can no longer
file taxes for other people” (Dkt. No. 14).
On August 31, 2017, Magistrate Judge Aloi entered a Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court deny Riggs’s
motion for default judgment without prejudice (Dkt. No. 16).
Although defaulting defendants are deemed to admit the factual
allegations of a complaint, a plaintiff is not entitled to default
judgment

unless

the

Court

determines

that

the

well-pleaded

allegations support the relief sought. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v.
Wing Spot Chicken & Waffles, Inc., 920 F. Supp. 2d 659, 665
(E.D.Va. 2013). Reasoning that Riggs’s complaint fails to establish
subject matter jurisdiction or a clear cause of action, Magistrate
Judge Aloi concluded that its allegations are insufficient to
warrant default judgment and recommended that the Court deny
Riggs’s motion (Dkt. No. 16 at 4).
The R&R also informed the parties of their right to file
“written objections identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis for such
objection.” Id. at 5. It further warned that the failure to do so
may result in waiver of the right to appeal. Id. Despite receiving

2

RIGGS V. WYATT

1:17CV17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14]
the R&R on September 2, 2017, Riggs has not filed any objections to
the recommendations.
“The Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made . . . and the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the
magistrate judge’s recommendations to which the prisoner does not
object.” Dellacirprete 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)). Failure to file specific objections waives appellate
review of both factual and legal questions. See United States v.
Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 & n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v.
United States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
Having received no objections to the R&R, the Court has no
duty to conduct a de novo review of Magistrate Judge Aloi’s
findings. Furthermore, following a review of the R&R and the record
for clear error, the Court adopts the opinion of the Magistrate
Judge for the reasons discussed in the R&R (Dkt. No. 16).
In conclusion, the Court:
1)

ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 16);

2)

DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
judgment (Dkt. No. 14).

3

Riggs’s motion for default

RIGGS V. WYATT

1:17CV17

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 16] AND
DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT [DKT. NO. 14]
It is so ORDERED.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit copies of this Order
to all pro se parties of record, certified mail and return receipt
requested, at their last known address on the docket.
DATED: October 4, 2017
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4