Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC

E.D. Virginia

Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC

DecidedDecember 16, 2022

Docket1:22-cv-00790

StatusUnknown

This text of Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC (Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Virginia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC, (E.D. Va. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

DORA L. ADKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) 1:22-cv-790 (PTG/WEF) ASHFORD TRS ALEXANDRIA, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave from the Court to File an Emergency Complaint (“Motion for Leave”) (Dkt. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Costs or Fees (“IFP Application”) (Dkt. 2). On July 25, 2022, Judge Fitzpatrick issued a Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave and IFP Application, recommending the Court deny the motion and application. Dkt. 3. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which objections, if any, are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court is authorized to accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. “[O]bjections must be specific and particularized in order to direct the attention of the district court to ‘only those issues that remain in dispute after the magistrate judge has made findings and recommendations.’” United States v. Kotzev, No. 1:18-cv-1409, 2020 WL 1217153, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). In this case, Plaintiff has timely objected to Judge Fitzpatrick’s R&R in two separate filings (Dkts. 5, 6). These objections essentially reiterate Plaintiffs claims of food and/or chemical poisoning stated in her original Motion for Leave. See, e.g., Dkt. 5 at 2; Dkt. 6 at 2. Simply restating a previously made argument does not satisfy the specificity requirement of objections. Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, D.S.C. No. 2:09-1988, 2010 WL 4340935, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010), aff'd, 414 Fed. Appx. 518 (4th Cir. 2011). After reviewing the record and the objections to the R&R, and having made de novo determinations with respect thereto, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, and APPROVES and ADOPTS IN FULL the findings Judge Fitzpatrick set forth in the R&R (Dkt. 3). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave (Dkt. 1) and IFP Application (Dkt. 2) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this matter be and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2022 | Uhh (A) by Patricia Tolliver Giles United States District Judge

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division

DORA L. ADKINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) 1:22-cv-790 (PTG/WEF) ASHFORD TRS ALEXANDRIA, LLC, ) ) Defendant. )

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) from Magistrate Judge William E. Fitzpatrick regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave from the Court to File an Emergency Complaint (“Motion for Leave”) (Dkt. 1) and an Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Costs or Fees (“IFP Application”) (Dkt. 2). On July 25, 2022, Judge Fitzpatrick issued a Report and Recommendation regarding Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave and IFP Application, recommending the Court deny the motion and application. Dkt. 3. When reviewing a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the R&R to which objections, if any, are made. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court is authorized to accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Id. “[O]bjections must be specific and particularized in order to direct the attention of the district court to ‘only those issues that remain in dispute after the magistrate judge has made findings and recommendations.’” United States v. Kotzev, No. 1:18-cv-1409, 2020 WL 1217153, at *3 (E.D. Va. Mar. 11, 2020) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). In this case, Plaintiff has timely objected to Judge Fitzpatrick’s R&R in two separate filings (Dkts. 5, 6). These objections essentially reiterate Plaintiffs claims of food and/or chemical poisoning stated in her original Motion for Leave. See, e.g., Dkt. 5 at 2; Dkt. 6 at 2. Simply restating a previously made argument does not satisfy the specificity requirement of objections. Abou-Hussein v. Mabus, D.S.C. No. 2:09-1988, 2010 WL 4340935, at *1 (D.S.C. Oct. 28, 2010), aff'd, 414 Fed. Appx. 518 (4th Cir. 2011). After reviewing the record and the objections to the R&R, and having made de novo determinations with respect thereto, the Court hereby OVERRULES Plaintiff's objections, and APPROVES and ADOPTS IN FULL the findings Judge Fitzpatrick set forth in the R&R (Dkt. 3). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave (Dkt. 1) and IFP Application (Dkt. 2) are DENIED. It is further ORDERED that this matter be and is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 16, 2022 | Uhh (A) by Patricia Tolliver Giles United States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Adkins v. Ashford TRS Alexandria, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adkins-v-ashford-trs-alexandria-llc-vaed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack