West v. City of Charleston

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting and incorporating the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendations herein; denying defendant's 4 Motion to Dismiss; this matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge under the original reference to take all such further steps and proceedings herein as shall be appropriate. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/11/2016. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (taq)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT CHARLESTON
PAMELA V. WEST,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-06584

CITY OF CHARLESTON,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is defendant’s motion to dismiss, filed July
29, 2015.
This action has been referred to Dwane L. Tinsley,
United States Magistrate Judge, who has submitted his Proposed
Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) on the motion to dismiss
pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Plaintiff’s complaint in this action, which was filed on May 22,
2015, makes a number of claims related to workplace
discrimination and harassment.

Defendant moved to dismiss on

July 29, 2015, and plaintiff responded on August 4.

The

magistrate judge filed his PF&R regarding defendant’s motion to
dismiss on November 12, 2015.

The court has reviewed the PF&R entered by the
magistrate judge on the aforementioned date.

Defendant had

moved to dismiss because service of process was insufficient:
plaintiff initially served a summons and complaint upon
Charleston’s city attorney, who is not authorized to accept
service on behalf of the city.

Plaintiff later served materials

upon the Mayor of Charleston, Danny Jones, submitted proof of
having done so, and responded that defendant’s motion should be
denied.

The magistrate judge found that plaintiff’s service

upon the mayor comported with applicable rules of procedure, and
accordingly recommended that defendant’s motion to dismiss be
denied.

Neither party has filed an objection.
Inasmuch as neither party has objected, and following

a de novo review, it is ORDERED that the PF&R be, and it hereby
is, adopted and incorporated herein.

It is further ORDERED that

defendant’s motion be, and it hereby is, denied.
The court also ORDERS that this matter be, and it
hereby is, recommitted to the magistrate judge under the
original reference to take all such further steps and
proceedings herein as shall be appropriate.

2

The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this written
opinion and order to counsel of record and plaintiff.

ENTER: February 11, 2016

John T. Copenhaver, Jr.
United States District Judge

3