Johnson v. Woods , 426 F. App'x 10 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •     10-2116-pr
    Johnson v. Woods
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
    SUMMARY ORDER
    RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY
    ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE
    OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY
    ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL
    APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY
    CITING A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
    COUNSEL.
    At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the
    Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of New York,
    on the 17th day of June, two thousand eleven.
    PRESENT:
    DENNIS JACOBS,
    Chief Judge,
    RALPH K. WINTER,
    BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
    Circuit Judges.
    __________________________________________
    Johnathan Johnson,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v.                                          10-2116-pr
    Robert Woods, Superintendent, Upstate Correctional
    Facility, et al.,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    __________________________________________
    FOR APPELLANT:                    Johnathan Johnson, pro se, Malone, NY.
    FOR APPELLEES:                    Patrick J. Walsh, Assistant Solicitor General, New York, NY.
    Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of
    New York (Hurd, J.).
    UPON DUE CONSIDERATION IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
    DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.
    Johnathan Johnson, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s grant of summary
    judgment in favor of appellees and dismissing Johnson’s complaint brought pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    . We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural
    history, and the issues presented for review.
    A litigant’s failure to file objections to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation,
    even when that litigant is proceeding pro se, waives any challenge to the report on appeal. See
    Cephas v. Nash, 
    328 F.3d 98
    , 107 (2d Cir. 2003) (“As a rule, a party’s failure to object to any
    purported error or omission in a magistrate judge’s report waives further judicial review of the
    point.”). A pro se litigant must be given notice of this rule; notice is sufficient if it informs the
    litigant that the failure to timely object will result in the waiver of further judicial review and
    cites pertinent statutory and civil rules authority. See Frank v. Johnson, 
    968 F.2d 298
    , 299 (2d
    Cir. 1992); Small v. Sec’y of Health and Human Servs., 
    892 F.2d 15
    , 16 (2d Cir. 1989) (pro se
    party’s failure to object to report and recommendation does not waive right to appellate review
    unless report explicitly states that failure to object will preclude appellate review and specifically
    cites 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1) and Rules 72, 6(a), and former 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
    Procedure).
    Here, the magistrate judge gave Johnson adequate notice that he was required to file any
    objections to the report and recommendation, and specifically informed him that failure to object
    2
    to any portion of the report would preclude his right to appellate review, citing the pertinent
    statutory and civil rules. Nonspecific objections that merely refer the Court to previously filed
    papers or arguments are insufficient to preserve appellate review. See Mario v. P&C Food
    Markets, 
    313 F.3d 758
    , 767 (2d Cir. 2002).
    In any event, we see no error in the district court’s adoption of the magistrate judge’s
    report and recommendation.
    We have considered Appellant’s other arguments on appeal and have found them to be
    without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is hereby
    AFFIRMED.
    FOR THE COURT:
    Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-2116-pr

Citation Numbers: 426 F. App'x 10

Judges: Dennis, Jacobs, Parker, Ralph, Winter

Filed Date: 6/17/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023