United States District Court, N.D. West Virginia
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
M. GROH, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
before the Court is the Report and Recommendation
("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge
Robert W. Trumble. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules,
this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Trumble for
submission of a proposed R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble
issued his R&R [ECF No. 12] on October 30, 2018. Therein,
Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the Petitioner's
§ 2241 petition [ECF No. 1] be denied and dismissed
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).
Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of
de novo review and of a Petitioner's 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).
“[w]hen a party does make objections, but these
objections are so general or conclusory that they fail to
direct the district court to any specific error by the
magistrate judge, de novo review is unnecessary.”
Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D.
W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
47 (4th Cir. 1982)). “When only a general objection is
made to a portion of a magistrate judge's
report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the
report-recommendation to only a clear error review.”
Williams v. New York State Div. of Parole, No.
9:10-CV-1533 (GTS/DEP), 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July
12, 2012). Courts have also held that when a party's
objection lacks adequate specificity, the party waives that
objection. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets,
Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that
even though a party filed objections to the magistrate
judge's R&R, they were not specific enough to
preserve the claim for review). Bare statements “devoid
of any reference to specific findings or recommendations . .
. and unsupported by legal authority, [are] not
sufficient.” Mario 313 F.3d at 766. Finally,
the Fourth Circuit has long held, “[a]bsent objection,
we do not believe that any explanation need be given for
adopting [an R&R].” Camby v. Davis, 718
F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983) (finding that without an
objection, no explanation whatsoever is required of the
district court when adopting an R&R).
to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within
fourteen plus three days of the Petitioner being served with
a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b). The R&R was mailed to the Petitioner by certified
mail on October 30, 2018. ECF No. 12. The Petitioner accepted
service on November 5, 2018. ECF No. 13. The Petitioner filed
objections on November 13, 2018. ECF No. 14. Accordingly,
this Court will review the portions of the R&R to which
the Petitioner objects de novo.
Judge Trumble recommends that that this action be dismissed
without prejudice because Petitioner does not seek relief
under any permissible ground in his § 2241 petition,
rather the relief sought should have been sought through
direct appeal or a § 2255 petition. ECF No. 12 at 13. In
his objections, the Petitioner states case law and states the
Court should show cause. However, the Petitioner does not
provide specific objections. Therefore, the Court finds that
de novo review is not required because the
Petitioner has failed to make specific objections to the
magistrate judge's analysis as found within his R&R.
upon careful review of the R&R and the Petitioner's
objections, it is the opinion of this Court that Magistrate
Judge Trumble's Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 12]
should be, and is hereby, ORDERED ADOPTED
for the reasons more fully stated therein. Therefore, the
Petitioner's § 2241 Petition [ECF No. 1] is
DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. Further, Petitioner's motion for
default judgment [ECF No. 9] and demand show cause [ECF No.
11] are TERMINATED AS MOOT.
Clerk is DIRECTED to strike this matter from
the Court's active docket. The Clerk is further
DIRECTED to transmit copies of this Order to
all counsel of record herein and to mail a copy of this Order