Strasburg v. Hardy County, WV, et al

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
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
2
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
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
3
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].
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
4
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).
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
5
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
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
6
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
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
7
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.
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>

Strasburg v. Hardy County 	2:22-cv-6
8
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
____________________________
THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
Case 2:22-cv-00006-TSK-MJA Document 44 Filed 02/11/26 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:
<pageID>