Howard v. West Virginia Division of Corrections et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (Motion for Injunction) the court accepts and incorporates herein the 21 Proposed Findings and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendation; denying without prejudice the plaintiff's 15 Motion for Injunction and the plaintiff's 20 Amended Motion for Injunction. Signed by Judge Joseph R. Goodwin on 3/23/2015. (cc: plaintiff, pro se; attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
CHARLESTON DIVISION

JOSEPH EUGENE HOWARD,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14-cv-13695

WEST VIRGINIA DIVISION
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
(Motion for Injunction)
Pending before the court are Plaintiff Joseph Eugene Howard’s Motion for Injunction
[Docket 15] and Amended Motion for Injunction [Docket 20]. These motions were referred to
the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission to this court of
proposed findings of fact and a recommendation for disposition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). On March 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge submitted proposed findings of fact and
recommended that this court DENY without prejudice the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction
[Docket 15] and the plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Injunction [Docket 20]. On March 19, 2015,
the plaintiff filed timely objections [Docket 22] to the Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings and
recommendation (“PF&R”).
A district court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the PF&R to
which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). This court is not, however, 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. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985).
The plaintiff’s objections, though timely, simply restate the allegations and evidence
from his previous filings. The only specific reference the plaintiff makes to the PF&R states:
“The balance of equity tips in favor of the plaintiff and he has in fact satisfied the four elements
of Winter v. National Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d
249 (2008).” (Pl.’s Objections to PF&R [Docket 22], at 3-4). “De novo review is not required or
necessary when a party makes general or conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a
specific error in the magistrate judge’s proposed findings and recommendations.” Howard’s
Yellow Cabs, Inc. v. United States, 987 F. Supp. 469, 474 (W.D.N.C. 1997). The plaintiff offers
no explanation as to how the Magistrate Judge erred in his analysis of the Winter factors and no
evidence contrary to the ultimate findings. Therefore, I do not construe the plaintiff’s mere
disagreement with the Magistrate Judge as a specific objection requiring de novo review.
Accordingly, the court accepts and incorporates herein the findings and recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge and orders judgment consistent with the findings and recommendation. The
court DENIES without prejudice the plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction [Docket 15] and the
plaintiff’s Amended Motion for Injunction [Docket 20]. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a
copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.
ENTER:

2

March 23, 2015