Opinion
6:20-cv-49-JDK-JDL
10-23-2021
SCOTT MARTIN SALINAS, #2271997, Plaintiff, v. LORIE DAVIS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
JEREMY D. KERNODLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Scott Martin Salinas, proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The case was referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636.
On August 25, 2021, Judge Love issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that the Court dismiss this case with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 19115A(b)(1) as moot, frivolous, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Docket No. 63. Plaintiff filed objections. Docket No. 67.
Where a party timely objects to the Report and Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded on other
grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from ten to fourteen days).
In his objections, Plaintiff argues that the Martinez Report was fabricated- but provides no support or explanation for his claim. A review of Plaintiff's objections illustrates his failure to address the crux of Judge Love's analysis: the allegation of deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.
A party objecting to a Magistrate Judge's Report must specifically identify those findings to which he objects. Frivolous, conclusory, or general objections need not be considered by the District Judge. See Nettles v. Wainright, 677 F.2d 404, 410 & n.8 (5th Cir. 1982) (en banc). Furthermore, objections that simply rehash or mirror the underlying claims addressed in the Report are not sufficient to entitle the party to de novo review. See U.S. v. Morales, 947 F.Supp.2d 166, 171 (D.P.R. 2013) (“Even though timely objections to a report and recommendation entitle the objecting party to de novo review of the findings, ‘the district court should be spared the chore of traversing ground already plowed by the Magistrate.'”) (internal citations omitted); see also Vega v. Artuz, No. 97-cv-3775, 2002 WL 31174466, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 30, 2002) (“[O]bjections that are merely perfunctory responses argued in an attempt to engage the district court in a rehashing of the same arguments set forth in the original petition will not suffice to invoke de novo review of the magistrate judge's recommendations.”).
Having conducted a de novo review of the record in this case and the Magistrate Judge's Report, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct, and Plaintiffs objections are without merit. Accordingly, the Court hereby ADOPTS the Report of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 63) as the opinion of the District Court. Plaintiffs claims are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
So ORDERED and SIGNED.