White vs Prime Care LLC, et al

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. The magistrate judges report and recommendation Doc. #6 is hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judges report,and plaintiffs Complaint Doc. #1 is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiffs objections Doc. #12 are hereby OVERRULED. Moreover, plaintiffs Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis Doc. #2 is hereby GRANTED AND THE FEE WAIVED. Plaintiffs second Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis Doc. #11 is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE thiscase from the active docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 10/6/2021. (Copy pro se Plaintiff via certified mail)(jmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/6/2021: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (jmm).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Clarksburg
JAYSON BRADLEY WHITE,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION No. 1:21-CV-112
Judge Bailey

PRIME CARE LLC and
BETSY C. JIVIDEN, Commissioner,
Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge AIoi [Doc. 6]. Pursuant to this Court’s
Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed
report and a recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on August 17,
2021, wherein he recommends that plaintiff’s Complaint [Doc. 1] be dismissed without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the reasons that
follow, this Court will adopt the R&R.
I. BACKGROUND
In the complaint, plaintiff alleges that he was denied proper medical care,
specifically, proper medical equipment, i.e., prosthetic shoes for his skeletal length
discrepancy, which had been prescribed for fifteen (15) years while incarcerated at the
Potomac Highlands Regional Jail, the Northern Regional Jail, and the Central Regional
Jail. See [Doc. I at 2, 4, & 7]. He alleges a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

1

[Id. at 8]. He also alleges that defendants committed gross negligence, retaliation in the
form of denied service and prolonged length of time in which he suffered. [Id. at 9].
As relief, plaintiff seeks a “compliance order to relevant federal statute” regarding
the Americans with Disabilities Act and three (3) million dollars in compensatory and
punitive damages, jointly and separately from each defendant. [Id.].
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(c), this Court is required to make a do novo

review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made.
However, the Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the
factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or
recommendation to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140,
150 (1985). Nor is this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes
only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the
magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d
44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982).
In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of do novo review and
the right to appeal this Court’s Order. 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour, 889

F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91, 94 (4th Cir.
1984). Pro so filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than
those drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections
where none exist. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Gordon v. Leeke, 574
F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1971).

2

Here, objections to Magistrate Judge AIoi’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days
of receipt, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Plaintiff timely filed his objections [Doc. 12] on August 27, 2021. Accordingly,
this Court will review the portions of the R&R to which objection was filed under a de novo
standard of review. The remainder of the R&R will be reviewed for clear error.
Ill. DISCUSSION
A.

Objections to R&R
In the R&R, Magistrate Judge Aloi found that defendant Prime Care LLC is not a

proper defendant because Prime Care LLC is not “person” for purposes of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and respondeat superior does not apply. See [Doc. 6 at 4—5]. Next, Magistrate
Judge Aloi found that plaintiff’s complaint is a claim of deliberate indifference to his medical
need but he makes no allegation that would support a finding that a policy or custom of the
West Virginia Division of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“WVDOCR”) led to improper or
untimely treatment of his feet or any skeletal length discrepancy. See [Id. at 5]. Moreover,
the magistrate judge found that plaintiff did not make any specific allegations of a violation
of any constitutional right against defendant Betsy Jividen and she was therefore
improperly named. See [Id. at 5—6]. The magistrate judge ultimately held that plaintiff
“failed to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirement that a complaint
must provide ‘a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief,’ in order to ‘give the defendant fair notice of what the.
upon which it rests.” See [Id. at 6].

3

.

.

claim is and the grounds

Plaintiff filed his objections on August 27, 2021. See [Doc. 12]. Therein, plaintiff
“objects summarily” to the R&R and moves this Court in the “matter of adoption,
appointment of counsel to represent his interest, and open subpoena of complete medical
records.

.

.

.“

See [Id. at 2]. Plaintiff argues there is “specific and plain error in the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

.

.

.

“

See [Id.].

Plaintiff then asserts that the

allegations he made “clearly define offences where he was denied adequate medical care
contrary not only to decisions made by the United States Supreme Court relating to such
care, but also in contrast [to] those provisions for providing care within the Americans with
Disabilities Act.” See [Id.].
Plaintiff moves this Court to: (1) order “the adoption of his petition in full for Do Novo
Review by a United States Circuit Judge”; (2) order “the Open Subpoena of records for all
his lifetime medical record including but not limited to those held by privately sought
physicians and Prime Care LLC”; and (3) moves this Court to order “the appointment of
counsel to represent his interest.”
“When a party does make objections, but these objections are so general or
conclusory that they fail to direct the district court to any specific error by the magistrate
judge, de novo review is unnecessary.” Green v. Rubenstein, 644 F.Supp.3d 723, 730
(S.D. W.Va. 2009) (citing Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47(4th Cir. 1982)). “When
only a general objection is made to a portion of a magistrate judge’s reportrecommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the report-recommendation to only a
clear error review.” Williams v. New York State Div. ol Parole, 2012 WL 2873569, at *2
(N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012).

4

A party waives any objection to an R&R that lacks adequate specificity. See Mario
v. P & C Food Markets, Inc., 313 F.3d 758, 766 (2d Cir. 2002) (finding that a party’s
objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R were not specific enough to preserve the claim
for review).

Bare statements “devoid of any reference to specific findings or

recommendation.

.

.

and unsupported by legal authority, [are] not sufficient.” Mario, 313

F.3d at 766. Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this Court’s Local Rules,
“referring the courtto previouslyfiled papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate
objection.” Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); LR PL P 12.
Plaintiff’s objections are not briefed or supported with legal authority; he ultimately
“objects summarily” and refers this Court to his Complaint. Plaintiff’s objections are
grievances regarding Magistrate Judge Aloi’s conclusions, and none preserve a claim for
review by this Court. The objections are unspecific and are devoid of any reference to
specific findings or recommendations and unsupported by legal authority.

Thus, it

appearing to this Court that plaintiff’s objections contain no actual legal objection to
Magistrate Judge Aloi’s R&R, this Court will adopt the R&R and overrule plaintiff’s
objections.
IV. CONCLUSION
A de novo review is unnecessary in this case based on plaintiff’s vague objections.
Accordingly, the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [Doc. 6] is hereby
ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report,
and plaintiffs Complaint [Doc. 1] is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff’s
objections [Doc. 12] are hereby OVERRULED. Moreover, plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed in

5

forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is hereby GRANTED AND THE FEE WAIVED. Plaintiff’s second
Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 11] is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. This Court
further DIRECTS the Clerk to enterjudgment in favor of the defendants and to STRIKE this
case from the active docket of this Court.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record and
to maila copyto the pro se plaintiff.
DATED: October 6, 2021.

)ô~~ONBAIL~~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6