Knight v. McLaughlin

Filing 16

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF. NO. 12 ). The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part (ECF No. 7 ). The Court DENIES in part the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; DENIES in part the Motion to Change Ve nue; GRANTS in part the Motion for Extension of Time to File a responsive pleading. Responsive pleading due on or before 5:00 p.m. on 5/17/2021. Signed by District Judge Thomas S. Kleeh on 4/26/2021. (Copy PS Defendant by cert. mail) (dk) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/26/2021: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (dk).

Case 1:20-cv-00254-TSK-MJA Document 16 Filed 04/26/21 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 70

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
BRIAN KNIGHT,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 1:20CV254

CANDICE MCLAUGHLIN,
Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 12]
On November 9, 2020, the Plaintiff, by counsel, filed a
Complaint alleging one count of defamation against pro se Defendant
Candice McLaughlin (“Defendant”). Compl., ECF No. 1.

On December

14, 2020, Defendant filed “Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
Jurisdiction

and

Motion

for

Change

of

Venue

and

Motion

for

Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading until Preliminary
Matters are Resolved.” ECF No. 7. Plaintiff filed a response in
opposition to the Motion. ECF No. 10.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Aloi for initial review. On March 16, 2021, the Magistrate Judge
entered

a

Report

and

Recommendation

(“R&R”)

[ECF

No.

12],

recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part the
Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 7].
The R&R also informed the parties regarding their right to
file specific written objections to the magistrate judge’s report

Case 1:20-cv-00254-TSK-MJA Document 16 Filed 04/26/21 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 71
KNIGHT V. MCLAUGHLIN

1:20-CV-254

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 12]
and recommendation. Specifically, the magistrate judge gave the
parties fourteen (14) calendar days after being served with a copy
of

the

magistrate

judge’s

recommended

disposition

to

file

“specific written objections, identifying the portions of the
Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis
of such objection.” The R&R further warned them that the “[f]ailure
to file written 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.” The docket reflects that the R&R
was

sent

to

the

Defendant

by

certified

mail,

return

receipt

requested. ECF Nos. 12, 13. The envelope was returned marked as
“return to sender, vacant, unable to forward” on March 30, 2021.
ECF No. 13. To date, no objections to the R&R have been filed.
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).
2

Case 1:20-cv-00254-TSK-MJA Document 16 Filed 04/26/21 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 72
KNIGHT V. MCLAUGHLIN

1:20-CV-254

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 12]
Because

no

party

has

objected,

the

Court

is

under

no

obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court
reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding
no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 12]. The Motion
to Dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part [ECF No. 7]. The
Court FINDS that (1) this District Court has personal jurisdiction
over the Defendant, and DENIES in part the Motion as to that
ground; (2) venue is proper in the Northern District of West
Virginia, and DENIES in part the Motion as to that ground; and (3)
additional time on behalf of the Defendant is needed to file a
responsive pleading, and GRANTS in part the Motion as to that
ground,

scheduling

Defendant’s

deadline

to

file

a

responsive

pleading on or before 5:00 p.m. on May 17, 2021.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to
counsel of record via electronic means and to the pro se Plaintiff
via certified mail, return receipt requested.
DATED: April 26, 2021
/s/ Thomas S. Kleeh
THOMAS S. KLEEH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3