Jackson v. Nicholas County Sheriff's Department
Filing
26
ORDER accepting and incorporating the 23 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; directing that plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice, and that this action be removed from the docket. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 2/1/2012. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (tmh)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION
DARRELL W. JACKSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:11-cv-00390
NICHOLAS COUNTY SHERIFF=S
DEPARTMENT,
Defendant.
ORDER
This action was referred to the Honorable Mary E. Stanley, United States Magistrate
Judge, for submission to this court of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for
disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2002). On December 7, 2011, the Magistrate
Judge submitted findings of fact and recommended that this court grant the defendant’s motion to
dismiss. On December 10, 2011, the plaintiff sent a letter to the court making a broad general
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings.
Section 636(b)(1) provides that "[a] judge of the [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) (2002). On its face, section 636(b)(1) does not
require any review at all, by either the district court or the court of appeals, of any issue that has not
been made the subject of an objection. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); Camby v.
Davis, 718 F.2d 198, 200 (4th Cir. 1983).
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. Howard’s Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United
States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997). A litigant who makes only vague objections to
the magistrate’s findings prevents the district court from focusing on disputed issues and thus
renders the initial referral to the magistrate judge useless. Id. Such a general objection does not
meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), and failure to file a specific objection constitutes a
waiver of the right to de novo review. Id. (citing Mercado v. Perez Vega, 853 F. Supp. 42, 44
(D.P.R.1993)).
In this case, plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations
constitutes a short letter stating “I am writing to request an objection against the Nicholas County
Sherriff Department on everything that they had requested.” The letter goes on to re-state the
plaintiff’s factual allegations, but does not address any of the magistrate judge’s reasons for
recommending the case be dismissed. Because the letter does not address any specific error by
the Magistrate Judge, the court FINDS that a de novo review is not required. Accordingly, the
court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge
and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendations. The court DISMISSES
the plaintiff=s complaint with prejudice, and DIRECTS this action to 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:
February 1, 2012
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?