Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:15-CV-57
06-07-2018
DONALD ESTEPP, Plaintiff, v. SGT. McKEEN, et al., Defendants.
(BAILEY)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS
Pending before this Court is plaintiff's Objections [Doc. 32] to the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble [Doc. 27]. Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble's R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of service, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The docket reflects service was accepted on May 10, 2018 [Doc. 28]. Plaintiff filed his Objections on June 6, 2018, which was well after his allotted objection period and a week after this Court adopted the R&R [Doc. 30]. Accordingly, plaintiff's Objections are untimely. However, this Court will nonetheless consider plaintiff's Objections.
The following is this Court's standard of review:
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, objections to a magistrate judge's R&R must be specific. See Orpiano v . Johnson , 687 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Park v . Comm'r of Soc. Sec., No. 4:11cv00030, 2012 WL 1356593, at *3 (W.D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012). General objections or mere reiterations of arguments already presented to the magistrate judge "have the same effects as a failure to object" and do not warrant de novo review. Parker , 2012 WL 1356593, at *3 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also United States v . Midgette , 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); Page v. Lee , 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003). The Court is aware of the [plaintiff's] pro se status. Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent standards than those
drafted by licensed attorneys. See Gordon v . Leeke , 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, the Court construes liberally the [plaintiff's] arguments in opposition to the R&R, but it will not create objections where none exist. Thus, the Court will review de novo only those portions of the R&R to which the [plaintiff] has made specific objections. The remainder of the R&R to which "general and conclusory" objections have been made will be reviewed for clear error. See McGhee v . Colvin , 6:14-cv-02644-JMC, 2015 WL 5707866, at *1 ([D.S.C.] Sept. 25, 2015) (internal quotations and citation omitted).Hunt v. Ballard , 2017 WL 3485029, at *2 (N.D. W.Va. Aug. 14, 2017) (Groh, C.J.).
Here, plaintiff makes no specific objections to the R&R. In stating that "plaintiff isn't compelled to directly reply to specific allegations of U.S. Magistrate Trumble but does so reply by a denial in general terms," [Doc. 32 at 1], plaintiff simply disagrees with the decision of the magistrate judge by way of general objection. Thus, in the absence of specific objections to the R&R, this Court is only required to review the R&R for clear error. Having again reviewed the R&R for clear error, this Court finds no reason to change its earlier decision to adopt the R&R.
Accordingly, upon consideration of the above, plaintiff's Objections [Doc. 32] are OVERRULED.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is hereby directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein and to mail a copy to the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: June 7, 2018.
/s/ _________
JOHN PRESTON BAILEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE