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. 13] on April 26, 2019. In his
R&R, Magistrate Judge Trumble recommends that the
Plaintiff's Complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed with
prejudice as to the Tygart Valley Regional Jail and without
prejudice as to the other Defendants. ECF No. 13 at 7.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court must conduct a
de novo review of the magistrate judge's
findings where 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 to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn,
474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections
constitutes a waiver of de novo review and of a
plaintiff'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 service. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). The pro se Plaintiff
accepted service on April 29, 2019. ECF No. 14. The Plaintiff
filed his objections to the R&R on May 6, 2019. ECF No.
15. However, those objections do not address the factual
findings or legal conclusions presented in Magistrate Judge
Trumble's R&R. Rather, the Plaintiff merely requests
that this Court review his pleadings with leniency, as he is
proceeding pro se. ECF No. 15 at 1. However,
Magistrate Judge Trumble already construed the Plaintiffs
pleading in a “liberal fashion” and held the
Plaintiffs pleading “to less stringent standards than
formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” ECF No. 13 at 3.
Because the Plaintiff presents no specific objections, this
Court will review the R&R for clear error.
careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this
Court that Magistrate Judge Trumble's Report and
Recommendation [ECF No. 13] should be, and is hereby,
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully
stated therein. Therefore, the Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF No.
1] is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the
Tygart Valley Regional Jail. The Plaintiffs Complaint [ECF
No. 1] is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as to
Debra Minnix and Rex Skidmore. The Plaintiffs Motion to
Settle [ECF No. 12] is DENIED.
matter is ORDERED STRICKEN from the
Court's active docket. The Clerk of Court is
DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the
Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, ...