Jones v. United States of America

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. (DKT. NO. 43 ). The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's 43 Report and Recommendation in its entirety, with the exception of any discussion relating to docket entry 34 ; DISM ISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones' Bivens Complaint (Dkt. no. 13 ), DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones' FTCA complaint (Dkt. no. 12 ) and Orders that this case be stricken from the Court's active docket. The Clerk is directed to enter a separate judgment order in this matter. Signed by District Judge Irene M. Keeley on 6/1/16. (Copy PS Petitioner via cert. mail)(mh) (Additional attachment(s) added on 6/1/2016: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (mh).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
TARONE M. JONES
Petitioner,
v.

//

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14CV92
(Judge Keeley)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
JAMES CROSS, Warden,
JOHN CROGAN, Associate Warden,
JOE COAKLEY, Associate Warden,
HAROLD BOYLES, Health Service Administrator,
M. WEAVER, Assistant Health Service Administrator,
TONYA BROWN-STOBBE, Health Service Care Provider,
WALTER DOBUSHAK, Health Service Care Provider,
RICHARD MILTON, Unit Manager,
DAVID SWEENEY, Unit Manager,
LAURA HOLCOMB, Unit Case Manager,
JASON DICKSON, Unit Counselor,
JANE and JOHN DOES,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 43]
On November 25, 2014, the pro se petitioner, Tarone M. Jones
(“Jones”), filed a Bivens complaint, together with a Federal Tort
Claims

Act

(“FTCA”)

complaint

(dkt.

no.

1).1

He

subsequently

resubmitted the two complaints on separate court approved forms
supplied by the Clerk’s office (dkt. nos. 12 (FTCA claim) and 13
(Bivens claim)). The Court referred the matter to United States

1

Jones’s complaints mirror virtually identical complaints filed in
2011. After review of Jones’s 2011 complaints, the Court dismissed
his Bivens claim with prejudice and his FTCA claim without
prejudice. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the Court’s
decision in a per curiam opinion on June 26, 2013. See Civil Action
No. 1:11cv115, dkt. no. 98.

JONES V USA, ET AL.

1:14CV92

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 43]
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi for initial screening and a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) in accordance with LR PL P 2.
On March 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Aloi issued his R&R (dkt.
no. 43), in which he recommended that the Court:
1.

dismiss with prejudice Jones’s Bivens action (dkt. no. 13)
based on res judicata;

2.

dismiss with prejudice Jones’s FTCA claim (dkt. no. 12) as
barred by the statute of limitations;

3.

deny Jones’s motion to add defendants (dkt. no. 34)2; and

4.

deny as moot Jones motion (dkt. no. 34), insofar as it moves
to call expert witnesses or engage in discovery.
On

March

28,

2016,

Jones

filed

his

“Objections

to

the

Racialized and Prejudice [sic] R&R” (dkt. no. 45), in which he
interposes

a

blanket

objection

to

the

“entire

report

and

recommendation” (dkt no. 45 at 1).

2

On May 31, 2016, the Court reviewed Jones’s “Notice to the Court
and Status Request,” which the Clerk entered as a motion to add
defendants and to call expert witnesses (dkt. no. 34), which
Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R addresses as such. Nevertheless,
following its review of the notice, the Court construed it as a
fourth motion to appoint counsel and denied it by Order dated May
31, 2016 (dkt. no. 47). Consequently, any discussion of it in the
R&R is rendered moot and no further discussion of it is warranted
here.
2

JONES V USA, ET AL.

1:14CV92

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 43]
II. STANDARD
“The Court will review de novo any portions of the magistrate
judge’s Report and Recommendation to which a specific objection is
made . . . and the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the
magistrate judge’s recommendations to which the prisoner does not
object.” Dellacirprete V Gutierrez, 479 F. Supp. 2d 600, 603-04
(N.D.W.Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 199 (4th
Cir. 1983)).
Vague objections to an R&R distract a district court from
“focusing on disputed issues” and defeat the purpose of an initial
screening by the magistrate judge. McPherson, 605 F. Supp.2d at 749
(citing Howard’s Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States, 987 F.Supp.
469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997)). Further, failure to raise “any specific
error of the magistrate’s review” waives the claimants right to a
de novo review. Id. (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47
(4th Cir. 1982)). Likewise, “general and conclusory” objections to
the magistrate’s R&R do not warrant a de novo review by the
District Court. Id. (citing Howard’s Yellow Cabs, 987 F.Supp. at
474); see also Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.2d 723 (S.D.W.Va.
2009).

3

JONES V USA, ET AL.

1:14CV92

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 43]
III. DISCUSSION
Jones asserts a generalized blanket objection to the R&R. In
addition,

he

spends

the

majority

of

his

one

page

objection

contending that the R&R is racially biased and prejudiced, that he
has no legal expertise, and that the Court is simply biased against
him. Jones’s objection fails to refer to any specific error of the
magistrate judge, is instead general and conclusory, and thus does
not warrant de novo review by this Court. McPherson, 605 F.Supp.2d
at 749. His filing is effectively a non-objection.3
III. CONCLUSION
Consequently, finding no clear error, the Court:
•

ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety, with the
exception of any discussion relating to docket entry 34;

•

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones’s Bivens complaint (dkt. no.
13);

•

DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Jones’s FTCA complaint (dkt. no. 12);
and

3

The failure to object to the Report and Recommendation not only
waives the appellate rights in this matter, but also relieves the
Court of any obligation to conduct a de novo review of the issue
presented. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 148-153 (1985); Wells
v. Shriners Hosp., 109 F.3d 198, 199-200 (4th Cir. 1997).
4

JONES V USA, ET AL.

1:14CV92

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. NO. 43]
•

ORDERS that this case be stricken from the Court’s active
docket.
It is so ORDERED.
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, the Court directs the Clerk of

Court to enter a separate judgment order and to transmit copies of
both orders to counsel of record and to the pro se petitioner,
certified mail, return receipt requested.
Dated: June 1, 2016.
/s/ Irene M. Keeley
IRENE M. KEELEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5