Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:20-cv-00032
11-04-2020
JEFF PERKINS, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On September 9, 2020, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendation ("PF&R") [ECF No. 24] recommending that the court GRANT the motions to dismiss [ECF No. 8] filed by Defendants the State of West Virginia and the Federal Highway Administration and DISMISS the matter from the court's docket.
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties were given 14 days from the date of the entry of the PF&R to file objections to the PF&R [ECF No. 24 at 8]. Plaintiff filed a Letter-Form Motion for Extension of Time to Objections to the PF&R. [ECF No. 25]. I granted Plaintiff an additional 10 days to file his objections. [ECF. No. 26]. Plaintiff did not make objections within the extended period of time but instead submitted a letter to the Court expressing his displeasure with certain actions taken by the Federal Highway Administration and the State of West Virginia and asking this Court to appoint him counsel. [ECF No. 27].
A district court "shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). Failure to file specific objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) . . . may be construed by any reviewing court as a waiver of such objection." Veney v. Astrue, 539 F. Supp. 2d 841, 845 (W.D. Va. 2008); see United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007) ("[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection."). General objections do not meet the requirements set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) or Rule 72(b), and, therefore, constitute a waiver of de novo review. See Howard's Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997).
The PF&R submitted by Judge Tinsley gave notice to the parties that they had a total of fourteen days from the filing of the PF&R "within which to file with the Clerk of this Court, specific written objections, identifying the portions of the PF&R to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection." PF&R at 15. Despite this guidance, the plaintiff's Letter fails to make specific objections or identify any alleged errors. Therefore, I FIND that a de novo review of the PF&R is not required. I accept and incorporate herein the PF&R and order judgment consistent therewith. The Court AFFIRMS the final decision of Magistrate Judge, DISMISSES with prejudice the case, and DIRECTS that this action be removed from the docket.
The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: November 4, 2020
/s/_________
JOSEPH R. GOODWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE