The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
ZACHARY KNOTTS, and
ELLEN HEINE,
Plaintiffs,
v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:21CV50
(KLEEH)
BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF JW
RUBY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 67]
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 38]
On April 19, 2021, pro se Plaintiffs Zachary Knotts and Ellen
Heine (“Plaintiffs”) filed a Complaint against all Defendants
alleging deprivation of civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
[ECF No. 1]. After the Plaintiffs failed to serve their Complaint
on any Defendant, the Court dismissed their claims without
prejudice on October 26, 2021 [ECF No. 20].
The Court subsequently granted the Plaintiffs’ motion to
amend, and they filed an Amended Complaint on May 9, 2022 [ECF
Nos. 23, 24, 26]. 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. Thereafter, Defendants
Shonnette J. Kingston (“Kingston”) and Adam Baus (“Baus”) moved to
dismiss the Amended Complaint [ECF No. 38].
On December 9, 2022, the magistrate judge entered a Report
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 67]
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 38]
and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court dismiss
the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to Kingston and Baus [ECF
No. 67]. Specifically, he found that (1) the Plaintiffs have failed
to properly serve Kingston and Baus as required by Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4, (2) the Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, (3) Kington and Baus are immune
from the Plaintiffs’ claims under the Eleventh Amendment and the
qualified immunity doctrine, and (4) the Plaintiffs have failed to
state a claim for which relief may be granted.
The R&R also informed the parties regarding their right to
file specific written objections to the magistrate judge’s report
and recommendation. 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 magistrate judge allotted an
extra three (3) days to account for mailing and service of any
objections. Therefore, parties had seventeen (17) calendar days
from the date of service of the R&R to file “specific written
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 67]
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 38]
objections, identifying the portions of the Report and
Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such
objection.” The docket reflects that the Plaintiffs accepted
service of the R&R on December 12, 2022 [ECF Nos. 72, 75]. To date,
neither party has objected.
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).
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. Finding none, the Court ADOPTS
the R&R [ECF No. 67] and GRANTS the motion to dismiss of Defendants
Kingston and Baus [ECF No. 38]. The Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE as it relates to these defendants.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk shall strike this matter from the Court’s active
KNOTTS ET AL. V. JW RUBY MEM. HOSP. ET AL. 1:21Cv50
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 67]
AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 38]
docket and transmit copies of this Order to all pro se parties via
certified mail, return receipt requested, and to counsel of record
via email.
DATED: December 30, 2022
THOMAS &. RLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA