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. 4] on January 8, 2019. 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 January 8, 2019. ECF No. 4. The Petitioner accepted
service on January 14, 2019. ECF No. 9. The Petitioner filed
objections on January 18, 2019. ECF No. 10. Accordingly, this
Court will review the portions of the R&R to which the
Petitioner objects de novo.
§ 2241 petition, the Petitioner alleges that FCI
Hazelton is “actively preventing access to the courts
by limiting access to materials” and improperly seizing
legal materials and drafted filings. ECF No. 1. at 5.
Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the action be
dismissed without prejudice because a § 2241 petition is
not the appropriate avenue of relief. ECF No. 4. at 6. In his
objections, the Petitioner “objects to his 2241 being
construed as failing to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.” ECF No. 10 at 1. The Petitioner argues
that FCI Hazelton is violating the “ACCARDI
doctrine” which provides that “when an agency
fails to follow its own procedures or regulations, that
agency's actions are generally invalid.”
Id. at 2.
magistrate judge notes in his R&R, 28 U.S.C. § 2241
permits a prisoner to challenge the fact and length of his
confinement, but generally not the conditions of that
confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,
498-99 (1973). In this case, the Petitioner is exclusively
challenging a condition of his confinement-namely, that his
confinement is limiting his access to the court. ECF No. 10
at 1. Therefore, § 2241 is not the appropriate avenue of
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. 4]
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. Because the Petitioner cannot succeed on
the merits of his claim, the Petitioner's request for
injunctive relief [see ECF No. 1 at 8] is
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