particular locality. Thus, DNX’s website does not justify the assertion of personal jurisdiction over the company on AAMG’s claims. Nor does the fact that plaintiff AAMG is located in Norfolk, Virginia, and therefore that the harmful effect of DNX’s alleged conduct will be felt in Virginia provide a valid basis for the assertion of personal jurisdiction in the absence of additional, purposefully directed activity. “Although the place that the plaintiff feels the alleged injury is plainly relevant to the inquiry, it must ultimately be accompanied by the defendant’s own contacts with the state if jurisdiction over the defendant is to be upheld.” ESAB Group, Inc. v. Centricut, Inc., 126 F.3d 617, 626 (4th Cir.1997); see also Young v. New Haven Advocate, 315 F.3d 256, 262-63 (4th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>). Instead, the defendant’s activities which
holding that court did not have personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendant because plaintiff failed to show that defendant was assignee of assignor over whom court had personal jurisdiction holding that a principal did not impinge students first amendment rights by censoring articles in a high school newspaper holding that the posting of allegedly libelous articles about a virginian on a connecticut newspapers website did not warrant the imposition of personal jurisdiction in virginia over the newspaper holding interactive website did not create general jurisdiction holding californias courts had personal jurisdiction over nonresident defendants from florida because california was the focal point of both the libelous newspaper article written by defendants and the harm suffered by the plaintiff