" (See Generally, Doc. No. 13.) The Court finds these general objections to the entirety of Magistrate Judge Major's R&R has the "same effect as a failure to object." See Alcantara v. McEwen, No. 12-CV-401-IEG (DHB), 2013 WL 4517861, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2013); see also Johnson v. Gains, No. 09cv1312-LAB (POR), 2011 WL 765851, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011) (following the sixth circuit and finding that objections to the report in its entirety do not satisfy the requirement that parties may file "specific written objections" under FRCP 72(b)(2)); Morris v. Barra, Civil No. 10cv02642 AJB (BGS), 2013 WL 1190766, at *17, n.11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013). Accordingly, without any further reference to any supplementary legal conclusions or facts, Petitioner is unable to support these broad conclusions and has thus failed to object.
Nonetheless, because plaintiff identifies only two defendants, Virga and Stewart, with the authority to place him on CSW, his due process claims should be dismissed as to all defendants except them. See Section III.C.2, above; see also Morris v. Barra, Civil No. 10cv02642 AJB (BGS), 2013 WL 1190766 at *10, *14 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013) (dismissing the plaintiff's due process claims because the complaint did not allege the defendants "actually imposed the SHU term" and thus "fail[ed] to sufficiently connect [them] to the imposition of the SHU term"). IV. Plaintiff's claims under state law
Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) ("[P]etitioner's failure to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation with the specificity required by [Rule 72(b)] is, standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the judgment of the district court as to this claim"); Howard v. Sec'y of Health & Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 506, 508-09 (6th Cir. 1991) ("A general objection to the entirety of the magistrate's report has the same effects as would a failure to object."); Lockert v. Faulkner, 843 F.2d 1015, 1019 (7th Cir. 1988) (holding that general objections do not preserve arguments for appellate review and stating that "[a] district judge should not have to guess what arguments an objecting party depends on when reviewing a magistrate judge's report"); Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 7 (3d Cir. 1984) (stating a "word-for-word examination of the entire proceedings before the magistrate . . . was not required" when appellant made only general objections); see also Morris v. Barra, 2013 WL 1190766, at *17 n.11 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2013); Johnson v. Gains, 2011 WL 765851, at *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2011); DiPilato v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 662 F. Supp. 2d 333, 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (reviewing report and recommendation for clear error where pro se plaintiff made only general objection). Concerns about judicial economy and efficiency guided these courts' decisions.