Strasburg

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

WILLIAM STRASBURG,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 2:22-CV-6

HARDY COUNTY, WEST VIRGINIA,

and MOOREFIELD POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT

AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 26], GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

EXCEED PAGE LIMIT [ECF NO. 42-1], OVERRULING OBJECTIONS [ECF NO.

42-2] AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

[ECF NO. 22]

I. BACKGROUND AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

On August 4, 2022, William Strasburg (“Plaintiff”) filed a

second pro se complaint against Hardy County, West Virginia, and

the Moorefield Police department. ECF No. 22. In the second

complaint [ECF No. 22], Plaintiff included a request for injunctive

relief. The second Complaint contains no new facts; rather,

Plaintiff refers the Court to those already filed. ECF No. 22.

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. 8.

On August 11, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a third

Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court

deny Plaintiff’s motions [ECF Nos. 23, 25] and dismiss the second

complaint [ECF No. 22] without prejudice. ECF No. 26. 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.” ECF No. 26 at 4. It further warned them

that the “[f]ailure to timely file written 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.

The third R&R [ECF No. 26] was sent to Plaintiff and returned as

undeliverable. ECF No. 27. No objections to the third R&R were

filed at such time.

On March 31, 2023, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s

R&Rs [ECF Nos. 10, 20, 26], overruled Plaintiff’s objections,

denied Plaintiff’s motions, and dismissed the first and second

complaints [ECF Nos. 1, 22] without prejudice. ECF No. 28. On May

1, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal. ECF No. 29. On

August 29, 2023, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit vacated the Court’s order and remanded for further

proceedings because it was unclear whether Plaintiff received

proper notice of the third R&R [ECF No. 26] and his obligation to

file specific objections to preserve appellate review. Strasburg

v. Hardy County, WV, No. 23-1484, 2024 WL 5561270, *1 (4th Cir.

Aug. 29, 2023) (per curiam) (unpublished); ECF No. 35. The Court

of Appeals affirmed the Court’s order adopting the first and second

R&Rs and further denied Plaintiff’s motions to compel responses to

discovery and sanctions. Id. Subsequently, the Court sent

Plaintiff a copy of the third R&R [ECF No. 26[], which he received

on March 31, 2025. The Court then granted Plaintiff’s Motion for

Extension of Time to File Response to Omnibus Report and

Recommendation [ECF No. 40] and extended the objections deadline

to May 1, 2025. ECF No. 41. Plaintiff timely filed objections to

the R&R, dated April 10, 2025. ECF No. 42-2. On the same day,

Plaintiff also filed Plaintiff’s Motion to Exceed Page

Limitations. ECF No. 42-1.1

II. OBJECTIONS AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

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 portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been

1 In the Motion, Plaintiff asserts that the page limitation “does not supply

the plaintiff with adequate space in which to supply this vast body of legal

information to this Court.” Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the motion

[ECF No. 42-1].

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. 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).

The Court is required to construe pro se pleadings liberally.

Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106–07 (1976). A court, however,

may not construct a plaintiff’s legal arguments for him. Small v.

Endicott, 998 F.2d 411, 417–18 (7th Cir. 1993) (citation omitted).

Nor is a court required to “conjure up questions never squarely

presented to [it].” Beaudett v. City of Hampton, 775 F.2d 1274,

1278 (4th Cir. 1985).

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff, pro se, filed several objections to the Magistrate

Judge’s third R&R. ECF No. 42-2. In Plaintiff’s Reply to

Magistrate’s Omnibus Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 42-2] he

includes sections titled: Day in Court; Traditional Notions of

Fair Play; Notice; Procedural Due Process; Mandamus; Statutory

Construction; In Forma Pauperis Procedure; Frivolous; The

Complaint and Solicitude for Rights; 42 U.S.C. § 1983; Bill of

Rights; Qualified Immunity; Pattern of Abuse; Substantive Right;

Pain and Suffering; Bad Faith; More Than De Minimis; 18 U.S.C. §

1512; and Protection of Civil Rights. Within these objections,

however, Plaintiff does not specifically object, and only directly

references once, to the Magistrate Judge’s findings in the R&R.

Thus, this objection will be reviewed de novo. The rest of the R&R

[ECF No. 26] will be reviewed for clear error.

Plaintiff’s main objection appears to be to the R&R’s finding

that his filings failed to articulate a form of relief which can

be granted by the Court. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff states “[w]hile

the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendations devote much effort to

attempting to characterize Plaintiff’s complaint as ‘nothing more

than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfully harmed me accusation

that is ripe for dismissal’. . . a reasonable trier of fact would

conclude that ‘proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.’

Texas Dept. of Comm. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248.” The case

cited by Plaintiff involved an employment discrimination suit, and

the quoted language is from the Court’s discussion of how the

plaintiff’s burden of persuasion that she was intentionally

discriminated against could be met. Id. at 256. The full case quote

reads “[s]he may succeed in this either directly by persuading the

court that a discriminatory reason more likely motivated the

employer or indirectly by showing that the employer’s proffered

explanation is unworthy of credence.” Id. It is unclear what

specifically Plaintiff intends to object to with the support of

this quoted language, as little explanation is offered.

In the rest of the filing [ECF No. 42-2], Plaintiff asserts

that he has experienced pain and suffering, and irreparable harm.

Id. Plaintiff contends that he has alleged facts, that if accepted

as true, show that he has suffered more than de minimis injuries.

Id. He quotes case law on conspiracy, the powers of the court,

qualified immunity, strict scrutiny, the requirements for a

complaint, and statutory construction, among others. Id. None of

these quotes, however, are accompanied with explanation, nor

direct the Court to the parts of the R&R with which Plaintiff takes

issue.

While Plaintiff cites a plethora of legal authority, he lacks

specificity in his objections. ECF No. 42-2. Much of the legal

authority cited does not pertain to the findings within the R&R,

nor to the issues at hand. Further, this authority is primarily

included as direct quotes without explanation from Plaintiff as to

its relevance to his objections. Despite the quoted legal

authority, the lack of explanation by Plaintiff ultimately leaves

many of the objections unspecific and devoid of any reference to

specific findings or recommendations in the R&R.

Plaintiff is correct in asserting that pleadings by pro se

litigants must be liberally construed. ECF No. 42-2 at 18. However,

even when construed liberally, the Court agrees with the Magistrate

Judge’s findings in the R&R [ECF No. 26] that Plaintiff fails to

articulate a form of relief that can be granted by the Court.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections [ECF No. 42-2] 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 [ECF No. 26] and

OVERRULES Plaintiff’s objections [ECF No. 42-2]. Plaintiff’s

Motion to Exceed Page Limitations [ECF No. 42-1] is GRANTED.

Strasburg v. Hardy County 2:22-cv-6

Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction [ECF No. 23] and Motion to Compel

Discovery/Motion for Summary Judgement [ECF No. 25] are DENIED.

Plaintiff’s second complaint [ECF No. 22] is DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE and the Court DIRECTS the Clerk to strike this 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: February 11, 2026

Tom 8 Kl

THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA