United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
AARON A. EDISON, Plaintiff,
STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, Department of Health and Human Resources, Bureau of Child Support Enforcement, and MICHELLE UVONNE EDISON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 43] AND GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
[ECF NO. 20]
S. KLEEH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is a Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) from United States Magistrate Judge
Michael J. Aloi, recommending that the Court dismiss this
action with prejudice. For the reasons discussed below, the
Court adopts the R&R.
October 17, 2018, the pro se Plaintiff, Aaron A.
Edison (“Plaintiff”), filed a Petition
Seeking Appeal and Relief for Constitutional Rights
Violations. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff argues that his
constitutional rights have been violated by the State of West
Virginia. Specifically, Plaintiff believes that a state
court's decision to suspend his driver's license due
to child support arrearages was unconstitutional, as was the
resulting harassment he suffered. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636 and the local rules, the Court referred the action
to Judge Aloi for initial review.
February 1, 2019, the State of West Virginia, Department of
Health and Human Resources and Bureau of Child Support
Enforcement (the “State”), moved to dismiss the
Petition for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of its
motion, the State argues that absent a waiver, it cannot be
sued in federal court. Plaintiff filed a response to the
motion, in which he argues that the State may be sued if it
is acting in violation of the Constitution of the United
States. The State then filed a Reply, in which it
reiterates its position and notes that Plaintiff did not
rebut it. Plaintiff then filed a surreply, styled as a Reply,
in which he also reiterates his own position.
April 16, 2019, Judge Aloi entered an order giving notice to
the parties that he intended to issue a R&R recommending
dismissal of this action in its entirety as to all
defendants. ECF No. 36. Judge Aloi directed the parties to
respond within 21 days “with any supplemental
information or amendments to the present filings to
demonstrate why this action should not be dismissed”
against all defendants and proposed defendants. Plaintiff
moved for an extension of time to respond, and Judge Aloi
granted the motion. See ECF Nos. 39, 40. To date, no
supplemental information or amendments have been filed.
19, 2019, Judge Aloi entered an R&R recommending
dismissal of this action. ECF No. 43. Specifically, he
believes the case should be dismissed based on the
State's sovereign immunity from suit under the Eleventh
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Even if this
Court finds that sovereign immunity does not apply, Judge
Aloi recommends dismissal based on lack of subject matter
jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine. Judge Aloi also recommends that the Court deny the
Motion to Amend/Correct as futile, that the Court dismiss
sue sponte the claims against Michelle Uvonne
Edison, and that the Court deny as moot the Motion to Strike.
R&R informed the parties that they had 14 days to file
“specific written objections identifying the portions
of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made,
and the basis for such objection.” Further, Judge Aloi
noted in the R&R that “[f]ailure to timely file
written objections to the Report and Recommendation . . .
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 indicates that Plaintiff
received the R&R on August 3, 2019. To date, no
objections have been filed.
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 the [parties do] not object.”
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).
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 of
the R&R, the Court ORDERS the following:
(1) the R&R is ADOPTED [ECF No. 43] for
reasons more fully stated therein;
(2) the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED [ECF
(3) the Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint is
DENIED [ECF No. 30];
(4) the Motion to Strike is DENIED AS MOOT
[ECF No. 33]; and
(5) this action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE
and STRICKEN from the Court's ...