finding that a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R were not specific enough to preserve the claim for review
How later courts described this case
- finding that a party’s objections to the magistrate judge’s R&R were not specific enough to preserve the claim for review
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
WILLIAM STRASBURG,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-16
CHIEF RIGGLEMAN, MOOREFIELD POLICE,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
I. BACKGROUND AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiff William Strasburg (“Plaintiff”
or “Strasburg”) filed a pro se complaint against Chief Stephen
Riggleman of the Moorefield, West Virginia Police Department
(“Defendant” or “Chief Riggleman”) regarding an alleged unlawful
arrest and related law enforcement interactions. ECF No. 1.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the local rules, the Court
referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Michael J.
Aloi (the “Magistrate Judge”) for initial review. ECF No. 3.
On July 22, 2024, Defendant moved to dismiss the case
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). ECF No.
10. On August 30, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) [ECF No. 14], recommending the Court
dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint [ECF No. 1] without prejudice and
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
deny as moot Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 10]. ECF No.
14. The R&R informed the parties that they had fourteen (14)
days plus an additional three (3) days from the date of the
filing of the R&R to file “specific written objections
identifying the portions of the Report and Recommendation to
which objection is made, and the basis for such objection.” It
further warned them that the “[f]ailure to timely file
objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by
the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the
Circuit Court of Appeals.” Id. at p. 13. Strasburg filed
objections to the R&R, dated September 18, 2024. ECF No. 15.
II. OBJECTIONS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
Plaintiff filed his Response to Defense Recommendation on
September 23, 2024. ECF No. 15. When reviewing a magistrate
judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to
which an objection has been timely made. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without
explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to
which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete 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)). Courts will uphold
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made
unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial
Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005).
“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.
2d 723, 730 (S.D. W. Va. 2009) (emphasis added) (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
report-recommendation, the Court subjects that portion of the
report-recommendation to only a clear error review.” Williams v.
New York State Div. of Parole, No. 9:10-CV-1533 (GTS/DEP), 2012
WL 2873569, at *2 (N.D.N.Y. July 12, 2012).
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 recommendations . . . and unsupported by
legal authority, [are] not sufficient.” Mario, 313 F.3d at 766.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this
Court’s Local Rules, “referring the court to previously filed
papers or arguments does not constitute an adequate objection.”
Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
Here, Plaintiff asserts that he adequately pled facts to
support claims of libel/defamation, malicious prosecution, and
other constitutional violations. ECF No. 15. Further, Plaintiff
contends that Chief Riggleman is not entitled to qualified
immunity and that the statutes of limitation have not passed.
Id. at p. 2. However, Plaintiff does not cite to any legal
authority to contradict the application of qualified immunity or
the statute of limitations.
First, the Magistrate Judge, construing Plaintiff’s pro se
Complaint liberally, interpreted Plaintiff’s alleged
constitutional claims to be based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No.
12 at p. 7. The Report and Recommendation rightly identified
that the applicable statute of limitations for a 42 U.S.C. §
1983 claim or a West Virginia personal injury claim is two
years. Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235, 249–50 (1989); W. Va. Code §
55-2-12. Similarly, the statute of limitations for a defamation
or libel claim in West Virginia is one year. W. Va. Code § 55-2-
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
12(c). The allegations in Plaintiff’s pro se Complaint occurred
between January and March of 2022. ECF No. 1. Strasburg,
however, did not file suit until July 1, 2024. Thus, more than
two years passed since the most recent allegation in the
Complaint.
In Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R, he asserts that the
claims are current because he is still suffering from the
effects of Chief Riggleman’s alleged defamatory conduct and the
alleged false arrests. ECF No. 15 at p.p. 2-3. However, per the
discovery rule, Plaintiff’s argument fails. Under West
Virginia’s discovery rule, “the statute of limitation began to
run . . . when the plaintiff knew, or by the exercise of
reasonable diligence should have known, of the elements of a
possible cause of action.” Post v. Amerisourcebergen Corp., No.
1:19-CV-73, 2023 WL 5598969, at *2 (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 29, 2023)
(quoting Dunn v. Rockwell, 689 S.E.2d 255, 265 (W. Va. 2009).
Here, there was no delayed discovery and thus the statute of
limitations began to run at the time of Chief Riggleman’s
alleged misconduct. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims are barred
by the applicable statutes of limitation.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
Second, Plaintiff does not offer any legal authority to
support his claim that Chief Riggleman is not entitled to
qualified immunity. Qualified immunity “protects government
officials from liability for civil damages insofar as their
conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known.” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 230 (2009) (quotation
marks and citation omitted). As stated in the R&R, each of
Plaintiff’s claims arise in the course of Defendant’s work as
the Chief of Police of the Moorefield, West Virginia Police
Department. Plaintiff’s Complaint nor his objections provide the
necessary facts or law to defeat the qualified immunity defense.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections [ECF No. 15] are OVERRULED.
The Court reviewed the remainder of the R&R for clear error and
found none.
III. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety
[ECF No. 14] and OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections [ECF No. 15].
Defendant’s motion to dismiss [ECF No. 10] and all other pending
motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Strasburg’s Complaint is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE and the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this
Strasburg v. Riggleman 2:24-cv-16
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 14], DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE [ECF NO. 1], AND DENYING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS [ECF NO. 10]
case from the Court’s active docket.
It is so ORDERED.
The Clerk shall transmit copies of this Order to counsel of
record via email and the pro se Plaintiff via certified mail,
return receipt requested.
DATED: March 21, 2025
Tom 8 Klute
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA