Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-CV-243
01-05-2021
JOHN W. SCHUMACHER, Plaintiff, v. TRIAD ADOPTION INC., doing business as Child Placement Center, Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge James P. Mazzone [Doc. 3]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and recommendation ("R&R"). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on December 11, 2020, wherein he recommends that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice and that the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis be denied as moot.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge's findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour , 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir. 1984). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Service was accepted on December 18, 2020. [Doc. 4]. Accordingly, plaintiff had until January 4, 2021, to file objections to the R&R. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, this Court will review the R&R for clear error.
In his Complaint, plaintiff seeks an order directing defendant to produce records of his son's adoption and for damages for "30 years of pain, suffering, mental and emotional harm." [Doc. 1 at 2]. In the R&R, the magistrate judge found that this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant. Construing the pro se Complaint liberally, the magistrate judge found that "there is no fact upon which the Court could rely to find minimum contacts exist between Defendant and the State of West Virginia." [Doc. 3 at 5]. Further, the magistrate judge found that even assuming personal jurisdiction exists over defendant, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because plaintiff's FOIA argument is inapplicable to a private corporation and that there is nothing in the Complaint indicating defendant is responsible for the alleged damages. [Id. at 6].
Upon careful review of the above, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 3] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Accordingly, the Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis [Doc. 2] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further ORDERS that this matter be STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court and DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of defendant.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: January 5, 2021.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE