Johnson v. W.V. DCR et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT WHEELING
MATHIS EUGENE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff,
v. 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00059
LT. TIBBS, NCRJ, and
DONALD TRUMP,
President USA,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending are Plaintiff Mathis Johnson’s pro se Letter-Form Objections [ECF 56] to
the Proposed Findings and Recommendations (“PF&R”) entered by the Honorable Joseph K.
Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, on March 4, 2026. [ECF 53]. The matter is ready for
adjudication.
I.
This action was previously referred to Magistrate Judge Reeder for submission of
a PF&R. Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on March 4, 2026 [ECF 53], in which he
addressed Mr. Johnson’s pro se Motions regarding amendment and correction of the operative
Amended Complaint. [ECF 39; ECF 40; ECF 49; ECF 51]. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended
the Court deny Mr. Johnson’s Motions.
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
II.
Federal law provides that “[a] judge of the court shall make a de novo determination
of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which
objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see Samples v. Ballard, 860 F.3d 266, 272. Failure to
file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal
the Court’s order. See id.; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (stating that review of a
magistrate judge’s factual or legal conclusions is not required as to those portions of the findings
or recommendation to which no objections are addressed); United States v. De Leon-Ramirez, 925
F.3d 177, 181 (4th Cir. 2019) (Parties may not typically “appeal a magistrate judge’s findings that
were not objected to below, as § 636(b) doesn’t require de novo review absent objection.”); Snyder
v. Ridenour, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (4th Cir. 1989). “Moreover, a general objection to a magistrate
judge's findings is not sufficient [to trigger de novo review] -- ‘a party must object to the
[magistrate's] finding or recommendation . . . with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert
the district court of the true ground for the objection.’” United States v. Benton, 523 F.3d 424, 428
(4th Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 626, 621–22 (4th Cir. 2007)); see
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982) (“Courts have also held de novo review to be
unnecessary . . . when a party makes general and conclusory objections that do not direct the Court
to a specific error in the magistrate’s proposed findings and recommendations.”).
Mr. Johnson fails to assert any clear objection to Magistrate Judge Reeder’s
findings in the PF&R. [See ECF 56]. Instead, he asserts a singular generalized objection to the
dispositions of the cases he has filed, in addition to reasserting certain complaints against Judge
Bailey:
Judge Preston Bailey is . . . misrepresenting the district court [sic]. I refuse any and
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
all mail I want a different judge, all these cases reopened due to corruption. I put in
civil lawsuits I want to settle out of court or go to trial. I repeat myself all mail from
the District Judge Preston Bailey will be sent back to you.
[ECF 56 at 1]. This objection is conclusory and does not provide sufficient specificity to point the
Court to a specific error in Magistrate Judge Reeder’s findings. Additionally of note, the Chief
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit designated the undersigned to
preside over this matter on September 17, 2025. [ECF 41]. Thus, Mr. Johnson’s request for a
different judge is moot -- and additionally lacks merit.
Accordingly, Mr. Johnson’s objections are OVERRULED. Inasmuch as Mr.
Johnson’s objection also included a request to add a claim against Clarissa Hill, that Motion is
DENIED AS MOOT.
III.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Mr. Johnson’s objections
[ECF 56], ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 53], DENIES Mr. Johnson’s Motions to Amend and/or
Correct the Complaint [ECF 39; ECF 40; ECF 49; ECF 51], and ORDERS the case be
REFERRED anew to Magistrate Judge Reeder under the terms of the original referral order.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.
ENTER: 	March 25, 2026
Case 5:25-cv-00059-FWV-JKR Document 57 Filed 03/25/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>