United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT.,
M. KEELEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
November 30, 2015, the pro se plaintiff, Jamal Craig
(“Craig”), filed this
Bivens action against the defendants, Michael
Weaver, Eddie Anderson, and T. Savidge (Dkt. No. 1). Craig
ultimately filed his court-approved form on December 12, 2016
(Dkt. No. 26). According to Craig, the defendants violated
his Eighth Amendment rights by being deliberately indifferent
to a fractured clavicle sustained when he fell from his top
bunk at Federal Correctional Institution, Gilmer.
Id. at 7-13. In his complaint, Craig seeks $2, 000,
000 in damages and injunctive relief. Id. at 14.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the
Court referred the complaint to the Honorable Michael W.
Trumble, United States Magistrate Judge, for initial review.
August 31, 2017, the defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint or, in the alternative, for summary judgment (Dkt.
No. 48). In a thorough and well-reasoned report and
recommendation (“R&R”) entered on May 21,
2018, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommended that the Court
grant the motion (Dkt. No. 61). Among other reasons, the
magistrate judge explained that “the medical records
fail to establish that Plaintiff's treatment . . . was
improper” or constitutionally inadequate. Id.
R&R also informed Craig of his right to file
“written objections identifying those portions of the
recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for
such objections.” Id. It further warned him
that the failure to do so may result in waiver of his right
to appeal. Id. On June 13, 2018, Craig filed
objections, but failed entirely to identify the portions of
the R&R to which he objected or the basis for such
objections (Dkt. No. 62). Instead, he stated only that he has
limited access to operable typewriters and that he
“object[s] to each and every claim denied by the
Magistrate Judge.” Id. at 1.
reviewing a magistrate judge's R&R, the Court must
review de novo only the portions to which an
objection is timely made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). On
the other hand, “the Court may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge's
recommendations to which the prisoner does not object.”
Dellacirprete 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 those
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).
objections to an R&R distract a district court from
“focusing on disputed issues” and defeat the
purpose of an initial screening by the magistrate judge.
McPherson v. Astrue, 605 F.Supp.2d 744, 749
(S.D.W.Va. 2009) (citing Howard's Yellow Cabs, Inc.
v. United States, 987 F.Supp. 469, 474 (W.D. N.C.
1997)). Failure to raise specific errors waives the
claimant's right to a de novo review because
“general and conclusory” objections do not
warrant such review. Id. (citing Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982);
Howard's Yellow Cabs, 987 F.Supp. at 474);
see also Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723
(S.D.W.Va. 2009). Indeed, failure to file specific objections
waives appellate review of both factual and legal questions.
See United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 &
n.4 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Moore v. United
States, 950 F.2d 656, 659 (10th Cir. 1991).
two-page general objection, Craig fails to identify a
specific error in the R&R (Dkt. No. 62 at 1). The failure
to identify specific errors in Magistrate Judge Trumble's
findings places the Court under no obligation to conduct a
de novo review. Diamond, 313 F.3d at 315.
Therefore, upon review of the R&R and the record for
clear error, the Court:
1) ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 61);
2) OVERRULES Craig's objection (Dkt. No.
3) GRANTS the defendants' motion to
dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment (Dkt. No.