Taccino v. Morrisey et al
ORDER 9 ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; denying 6 Motion to Change Venue. DISMISSES Counts One through Thirteen of the complaint WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike this matter from the Courts active docket, entera separate judgment in favor of the Defendants. Signed by Chief Judge Gina M. Groh on 3/21/17. (njz) copy mailed to pro se pla via cert. return rec't mail
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WILLIAM A. TACCINO,
CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-164
PATRICK MORRISEY, SUE ROBEY,
J. COURRIER, JOE E. MILLER,
JAMES DAVIS, TROOPER JOHN
DROPPLEMAN, NELSON MICHAEL,
MICHAEL SHAY, KEITH BRADSHAW,
BRIDGETTE COHEE, TRACEY B.
EBERLING, JASON P. FOSTER,
and RALPH BRADY,
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On this day, the above-styled matter came before the Court for consideration of
the Report and Recommendation (AR&R@) of United States Magistrate Judge Robert W.
Trumble. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate
Judge Trumble for submission of an R&R. Magistrate Judge Trumble issued his R&R
[ECF No. 9] on February 8, 2017. In the R&R, he recommends that the Plaintiff=s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 Complaint [ECF No. 1] be dismissed with prejudice. For the reasons set
forth below, the court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Trumble’s R&R and DENIES the
Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2] and to change venue
[ECF No. 6]. The Court DISMISSES Counts One through Thirteen of the complaint WITH
Objections to Magistrate Judge Trumble=s R&R were due within fourteen days of
the Plaintiff being served with a copy of the same. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ.
P. 72(b). Service was accepted at 402 Pine Avenue in Cumberland, Maryland, on
February 13, 2017, and the Plaintiff timely filed arguments in opposition thereto. The
Court is aware of the Plaintiff’s pro se status. Pro se pleadings are held to less stringent
standards than those drafted by licensed attorneys. See Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147,
1151 (4th Cir. 1978). Accordingly, although the Court construes liberally the Plaintiff’s
arguments in opposition to the R&R, it will not create objections where none exist.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo
review of those portions of the magistrate judge=s findings to which objection is made.
However, objections to a magistrate judge’s R&R must be specific. See Orpiano v.
Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 48 (4th Cir. 1982); see also Parker v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No.
4:11cv00030, 2012 WL 1356593, at *3 (W. D. Va. Apr. 19, 2012). General objections or
mere reiterations of arguments already presented to the magistrate judge “have the same
effect as a failure to object,” and thus do not warrant de novo review. Parker, 2012 WL
1356593, at *3 (internal quotations and citation omitted); see also United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d 411, 416 n.3 (4th
The Court will review the portions of the R&R to which “general and
conclusory” objections have been made for clear error. McGhee v. Colvin, 6:14-cv02644-JMC, 2015 WL 5707866, at *1 (Sept. 25, 2015) (internal quotations and citation
The Plaintiff’s only discernible objection is with regard to suing the Defendants “in
name, not official capacity.” See ECF No. 12 at 2. However, the only portion of the R&R
that relies on qualified immunity applies to Defendant Morrisey, who has been voluntarily
dismissed by the Plaintiff.1 Thus, the Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED AS MOOT.
The remaining portions of the Plaintiff’s arguments are, in some form, general
objections and reiterations of claims or factual scenarios already presented. Thus, in the
absence of specific objections to the R&R, this Court is not required to provide an
explanation for adopting the recommendation. See McGhee, 2015 WL 5707866, at *2.
Therefore, upon careful review of the R&R, it is the opinion of this Court that
Magistrate Judge Trumble=s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 9] should be, and is,
hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated therein. Accordingly, the
Court DENIES the Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. 2]
and to change venue [ECF No. 6], and DISMISSES Counts One through Thirteen of the
complaint WITH PREJUDICE.
The Clerk is DIRECTED to strike this matter from the Court’s active docket, enter
a separate judgment in favor of the Defendants, and transmit a copy of this Order to the
pro se Plaintiff by certified mail, return receipt requested, to his last known address as
shown on the docket.
DATED: March 21, 2017
More specifically, the Plaintiff dismissed Defendants Patrick Morrisey, Sue Robey, Joe E. Miller, Bridgette
Cohee, Tracey B. Eberling and Jason P. Foster in his objections to the R&R. See ECF No. 12 at 3-4.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?