El-Bey v. State of N.C. D. of Health

Full title: NOBLE TORNELLO FONTAINE PIERCE EL-BEY NOBLE FREDDIE L. FULLER ALI…

Court: United States District Court, M.D. North Carolina

Date published: Aug 19, 2010

1:09CV693 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 19, 2010)

Opinion

1:09CV693.

August 19, 2010

ORDER

CARLTON TILLEY JR., District Judge

The Complaint in this case was filed on September 10, 2009 [Doc. # 2]. On February 9, 2010, United States Magistrate Judge Trevor Sharp filed an Order and Recommendation [Doc. # 6]. Notice was served on the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a copy was given to the Court. On February 16, 2010 the Plaintiffs filed objections to the Recommendation [Doc. # 8].

A court is not required to conduct a de novo review where objections to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are general and conclusory. See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4^th Cir. 1982) (citing United States v. Merz, 376 U.S. 192 (1964)); see also Smith v. Nuth, No. 96-6614, 1996 WL 593792 (4^th Cir. Oct. 16, 1996) ("Because general objections do not direct the [district] court's attention to any specific portions of the [Recommendation], general objections . . . are tantamount to a failure to object."). Cf. United States v. Midgette, No. 05-4765, 2007 WL 572127, at *4 (4^th Cir. Feb. 26, 2007) ("Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's objection to a magistrate judge's report be specific and particularized, as the statute directs the district court to review only `those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.'") (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

In this case, the Plaintiffs' objections were not only conclusory and general, they were virtually incoherent and failed to direct the Court to anything of significance in the Recommendation. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's failure to object properly, and in consideration of the pro se nature of Plaintiff's case, the Court did perform a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. Based on this review, the Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to be an accurate reflection of the law as applied to the facts of this case. The Court therefore adopts in full the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Plaintiff's Complaint [Docket No. 2] is frivolous and the entire cause of action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Plaintiffs subsequent to the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation [Doc. #11] should now be dismissed as moot. A judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order.