STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

Greg Givens and Dennis Givens, 

Plaintiffs Below, Petitioners 

October 4, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

OF WEST VIRGINIA 

vs) Nos. 12-0946 and 12-0981 (Ohio County 11-C-35 and 11-C-36) 

Rebecca Randolph; Main Street Financial Services 

Corp. (Holding Company for Main Street Bank); 

Keith C. Gamble; Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown, & Poe, 

PLLC; individually and collectively, Defendants Below, 

Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioners Greg Givens and Dennis Givens, appearing pro se, appeal the order of the 

Circuit Court of Ohio County, entered August 7, 2012, that dismissed their respective civil 

actions alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. 1 Respondents 

Rebecca Randolph; Main Street Financial Services Corp. (a holding company for Main Street 

Bank); Keith C. Gamble; and Pullin, Fowler, Flanagan, Brown, & Poe, PLLC; by counsel Keith C. 

Gamble and Stephen M. Fowler; filed a response. 

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Petitioner Dennis Givens has appealed to this Court previously. See Givens v. Gamble 

(Givens I), No. 12-0341, 2013 WL 1859170 (W.Va. Supreme Court, May 3, 2013) (memorandum 

decision) (affirming the dismissal of a similar action on the grounds of the litigation privilege, the 

statute of limitations, and the doctrine of res judicata). It appears that Respondent Keith C. Gamble 

and his law firm represented Rebecca Randolph and Main Street Bank2 in previous litigation 

1 By a scheduling order entered September 12, 2012, this Court consolidated the respective 

appeals of Petitioner Greg Givens and Petitioner Dennis Givens for purposes of briefing, 

consideration, and decision. 

2 Rebecca Randolph and Main Street Bank and their attorneys are respondents herein. 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

involving Petitioner Dennis Givens’s nephew Greg Givens who is his co-petitioner in the instant 

appeal. 

Since the original litigation between Petitioner Greg Givens and Rebecca Randolph and 

Main Street Bank, Greg Givens and Dennis Givens, along with a Carol Pazzuto,3 have filed 

numerous actions against respondents in numerous courts.4 Relevant to the case at bar, Petitioner 

Greg Givens filed Civil Action No. 11-C-35 in the Circuit Court of Ohio County on January 31, 

2011, seeking $20,000,000 in damages. That same day, Petitioner Dennis Givens filed a similar 

action in Civil Action No. 11-C-36, seeking $12,000,000, also in the Circuit Court of Ohio 

County. 

On February 28, 2011, respondents filed joint motions to dismiss both Nos. 11-C-35 and 

11-C-36. Petitioners filed memoranda in opposition on or about March 10, 2011. Respondents 

then filed a reply on or about April 18, 2011. Thereafter, the circuit court entered a twenty-four 

page order on August 7, 2012, dismissing both cases for failure to assert any claim upon which 

relief can be granted, concluding as follows: 

. . . . As noted above, the Court FINDS the legal doctrine of 

res judicata bars [petitioners’] Complaints as the same allegations 

contained therein have already been asserted and dismissed in 

several other civil actions filed by [petitioners]. Additionally, the 

Court FINDS [petitioners’] claims of defamation are barred by the 

statute of limitations, the litigation privilege,[5

] and are unsupported 

by [petitioners’] allegations. Further, the Court FINDS any 

remaining claims of [petitioners] are also outside the applicable 

statute of limitations, are wholly unsupported by [petitioners’] 

allegations, and are again precluded by the litigation privilege. The 

Court FINDS [petitioners] do not have standing to assert claims on 

behalf of individuals not parties to the civil action[s]. Finally, the 

3 In the case at bar, the circuit court identified Ms. Pazzuto as Petitioner Greg Givens’s 

mother. 

4 In Givens v. Gamble (Givens I), No. 12-0341, 2013 WL 1859170 (W.Va. Supreme Court, 

May 3, 2013) (memorandum decision), the Circuit Court of Monongalia County based its finding 

that the doctrine of res judicata barred Petitioner Dennis Givens’s action in that case on the 

dismissal of two prior actions by the Circuit Court of Ohio County. 

5 See Syl. Pt. 3, Clark v. Druckman, 218 W.Va. 427, 624 S.E.2d 864 (2005) (“The 

litigation privilege is generally applicable to bar a civil litigant’s claim for civil damages against an 

opposing party’s attorney if the alleged act of the attorney occurs in the course of the attorney’s 

representation of an opposing party and is conduct related to the civil action.”). 

2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Court FINDS [petitioners’] complaints are deficient under Rule 8(a) 

of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure.[6

] 

“Appellate review of a circuit court’s order granting a motion to dismiss a complaint is de 

novo.” Syl. Pt. 2, State ex rel. McGraw v. Scott Runyan Pontiac-Buick, Inc., 194 W.Va. 770, 461 

S.E.2d 516 (1995). 

On appeal, petitioners argue that a motion to dismiss should be granted only when the 

plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle him to relief. Respondents argue that 

petitioners’ various allegations are barred by the litigation privilege, the applicable statute of 

limitations, and the doctrine of res judicata. Respondents assert that this Court should uphold the 

circuit court’s August 7, 2012 order dismissing the instant actions. 

The Court has carefully considered petitioners’ respective allegations in light of the circuit 

court’s grounds for dismissing their complaints. First, “liberalization in the rules of pleading in 

civil cases does not justify a . . . baseless pleading.” Par Mar v. City of Parkersburg, 183 W.Va. 

706, 711, 398 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990) (dismissals of complaints containing only conclusory 

allegations without the support of material factual allegations will be upheld) (internal quotations 

and citations omitted). In addition to containing only allegations of a conclusory nature, 

petitioners’ complaints are also baseless because they are barred by the applicable statute of 

limitations and the litigation privilege. Second, the circuit court correctly determined that 

petitioners’ actions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata. See Syl. Pt., 1, Antolini v. West 

Virginia Division of Natural Resources, 220 W.Va. 255, 647 S.E.2d 535 (2007) (setting forth the 

principles of res judicata). Therefore, this Court concludes that the circuit court did not err in 

dismissing the Civil Action Nos. 11-C-35 and No. 11-C-36. 

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm. 

Affirmed. 

ISSUED: October 4, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

6 Rule 8(a)(1) of the West Virginia Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a pleading shall 

contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” 

3