Opinion
Civil Action 5:24-CV-105
08-13-2024
Clayton Steven Collins, Plaintiff, v. DR. AYNE AMJAD, Medical Director of Correctional Healthcare, DR. JAMES BEANE, In charge of Medical Dept., St. Marys Prison, CARLA DEEM, RN, MELINDA GOFF, and JAMES HERSELL III, Defendants.
ORDER
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Mazzone [Doc. 15]. Pursuant to this Court's Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Mazzone for submission of a proposed report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Mazzone filed his R&R on July 19, 2024, wherein he recommends that respondent's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied. For the reasons that follow, this Court will adopt the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND & STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court fully adopts and incorporates herein the “Background” section of the R&R. See [Doc. 15 at 2-3].
Pursuant 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). Nor is this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the 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). Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections where none exist. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1971).
Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff timely filed his objections to the R&R on August 7, 2024. See [Doc. 27]. Accordingly, this Court will review the portions of the R&R to which objection was filed under a de novo standard of review. The remainder of the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.
II. DISCUSSION
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Mazzone recommends this motion be denied. Specifically, Magistrate Judge Mazzone cites plaintiff's failure to meet the four-part Winter test forthe issuance of preliminary injunction. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). See [Doc. 15 at 6], Plaintiff objects generally to Magistrate Judge Mazzone's recommendation that the motion be denied. See [Doc. 27 at 1]. Plaintiff states that other inmates have received the treatment he is requesting and restates his argument that it is unfair for him to fee excluded from the ability to get that same treatment. [Id. at 2-4]. Plaintiff, through a question at the end of his objections, objects to the amount of time left on a sentence influencing medical treatment. [Id. at 4], Plaintiff does not object specifically to any of the conclusions or reasoning of Magistrate Judge Mazzone, but instead broadly objects to the unfairness of his being denied the medical treatment he requests. [Id. at 1-4], “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 review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723, 730 (S.D. W.Va. 2009) (Johnston, J.) (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.
Plaintiff does not direct this Court to any specific error made by Magistrate Judge Mazzone. Instead, plaintiff reiterates his original claimsand the circumstances surrounding those claims. See [Doc. 27 at 1-4]. Plaintiff does not address the Magistrate's findings regarding plaintiff's likelihood of success on the merits, the likelihood of irreparable harm to plaintiff, the balance of equities, nor whether this injunction would be in the public interest. As plaintiff fails to identify specific errors made by Magistrate Judge Mazzone, de novo review is unnecessary. See Green, 644 F.Supp.2d at 730 (citing Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47 (4th Cir. 1982)).
III. CONCLUSION
Aside from the arguments addressed herein, a de novo review of the record indicates that the magistrate judge's report accurately summarizes this case and the applicable law. Accordingly, the magistrate judge's report and recommendation [Doc. 15] is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge's report. Plaintiff's objections [Doc. 27] are OVERRULED. The Motion [Doc. 13] is hereby DENIED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.