Turner v. Wolfe ( 2022 )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Wheeling ROBERT T. TURNER, Petitioner, oy, Civil Action No. 5:22-CV-197 Judge Bailey R.M. WOLFE, Respondent. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION The above referenced case is before this Court upon the magistrate judge’s recommendation that this matter be dismissed with prejudice. See [Doc. 52]. This Courtis charged with conducting a de novo review of any portion of the magistrate judge’s report to which a specific objection is registered, and may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations contained in that report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, absent prompt objection by a dissatisfied party, it appears that Congress did not intend for the district court to review the factual and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Additionally, any party who fails to file timely, written objections to the magistrate judge’s report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) waives the right to raise those objections at the appellate court level. United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 467 U.S. 1208 (1984). “When 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 reviewis unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.3d 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, 2012 WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012). A party waives any objection to an R&R that lacks adequate specificity. See Mario v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R were not specific enough to preserve the claim for review). Bare statements “devoid of any reference to specific findings or recommendation ... and unsupported by legal authority, [are] not sufficient.” Mario, 313 F.3d at 766. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court's Local Rules, “referring the court to previously filed papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR PL P 12. As such, petitioner's generalized and conclusory objections are overruled. Accordingly, a review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge’s report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Therefore, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 11] is AFFIRMED, and the petition [Doc. 1] is DENIED and DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to mail a copy of this Order to petitioner and to transmit copies to all counsel of record herein. DATED: December !§ , 2022. Ketel BAILEY □ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE