United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. CHAMBERS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
before the Court are Plaintiff's objections to the
Proposed Findings and Recommendation (“PF&R”)
regarding Defendant PrimeCare Medical's
(“PrimeCare”) Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF
No. 58. ECF No. 108. For the following reasons, the Court
ADOPTS AND INCORPORATES HEREIN the
Magistrate Judge's PF&R, ECF No. 96, and
GRANTS PrimeCare's Motion for Summary
Judgment, ECF No. 58.
proceeding pro se, filed his Complaint on February
21, 2017. ECF No. 2. Defendant responded to Plaintiff's
Complaint by filing a Motion to Dismiss on July 31, 2017. ECF
No. 19. This Court adopted the PF&R, ECF No. 26, and
granted in part and denied in part the Motion to Dismiss. ECF
No. 33. Plaintiff then filed the Amended Complaint on August
17, 2018. ECF No. 46. On September 11, 2018, PrimeCare filed
the Motion for Summary Judgment. ECF No. 58. After
consideration of Defendant's Motion, Magistrate Judge
Omar J. Aboulhosn filed the present PF&R on May 20, 2019,
in which he recommends that Defendant's motion be
granted. ECF No. 96. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the
PF&R. ECF No. 108.
reviewing the PF&R, this Court must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the . . . [Magistrate
Judge's] proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In
doing so, the Court can “accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.” Id. The Court, however, is
not required to review the factual or legal conclusions of
the Magistrate Judge to which no objections are made.
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 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).
party acts pro se, the Court must liberally construe
his pleadings and objections. Estelle v. Gamble, 429
U.S. 97, 106 (1976). However, failure to raise specific
errors waives the right to de novo review because
“general and conclusory” objections do not
warrant such review. McPherson v. Astrue, 605
F.Supp.2d 744, 749 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982)). Moreover,
incoherent objections and those which largely reiterate the
same facts and legal arguments raised before the magistrate
judge are similarly not entitled to review. Reynolds v.
Saad, No. 1:17-124, 2018 WL 3374155, at *2 (N.D. W.Va.
July 11, 2018), aff'd, 738 Fed.Appx. 216 (4th
multiple readings and affording the outermost bounds of a
liberal interpretation, the Court struggles to find a
comprehensible, specific objection. Plaintiff numbers his
paragraphs, but each is largely a regurgitation of the legal
standard or a muddled string of generalized complaints. In an
effort to dutifully fulfill its role, the Court addresses
Plaintiff's objections insofar as it can find a direct,
first enumerated objection is a generalized one and pertains
to the Magistrate Judge's findings on Plaintiff s Eighth
Amendment and negligence claims. In support of this,
Plaintiff states these findings are based "on not fully
disclosed antecedent incidence of judicial standard of
precaution," and states that there were elements where
his "strategy was to reveal at trial." As discovery
has concluded in this matter, Plaintiff must have introduced
all relevant evidence at this point. This objection is
otherwise unspecified, and thus OVERRULED.
numerals two through ten, Plaintiff recites elements of
vicarious liability and respondeat superior, but
makes no objections to the PF&R itself. Insofar as these
are a generalized objections to the PF&R's findings
on Plaintiffs negligence claims, they are
last part of Plaintiff s obj ections, labeled "11,"
states that Defendants "failed discovery expectations of
releasing and forwarding a copy of their, PrimeCare's
policy procedure/directive[.]" and cites ECF No. 43.
This is not an objection to the PF&R, and any ability to
compel discovery that Plaintiff deems inadequate was waived
after thirty days without good cause, which was not argued or
shown. L. R. Civ. P. 37.1(c). To the extent that this objects
to the PF&R is based on missing evidence, it is
above listed reasons, the Court ADOPTS AND
INCORPORATES Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn's
PF&R, ECF No. 96, GRANTS PrimeCare's
Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 58, and
REFERS this ...