United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division
MEMORANDUM ORDER (ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE)
E. Hudson Senior United States District Judge.
matter comes before the Court following a Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation ("R&R"),
drafted in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and
issued on January 3, 2019 (ECF No. 17). On January 17, 2019,
Levian Dockery (pro se "Plaintiff) timely filed
his "Objections to the Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge,"
("Plaintiffs Objections," ECF No. 18), which
triggered this Court's de novo review of the R&R.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(3). In conducting its review, this Court may accept,
reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the Magistrate
Judge's recommended disposition of the case. Id.
relevant facts and procedural history are as follows:
filed a form Complaint in this Court on January 29, 2018.
(ECF No. 3.) In his pleading, Plaintiff alleges that the
Social Security Administration ("SSA") has been
unlawfully garnishing his retirement benefits since 2013.
(Compl. 4.) Thereafter, the SSA's Acting Commissioner,
Nancy Berryhill ("Commissioner"), filed a Motion to
Dismiss (the "Motion," ECF No. 9) and an
accompanying Brief in Support (ECF No. 10). In her Motion,
the Commissioner makes two arguments. First, the Commissioner
argues that Plaintiffs Complaint is barred by res judicata
because a virtually identical dispute between the same
parties was resolved on the merits by a district court in the
District of Maryland. See Dockery v. Comm'r, Soc.
Sec, No. 15-2650, 2016 WL 3087453 (D. Md. June 1, 2016),
R&R adopted (D. Md. Nov. 18,
2016). Second, the Commissioner argues that
sovereign immunity prevented Plaintiff from challenging the
garnishment of his social security benefits. Consistent with
the Commissioner's arguments, the Magistrate Judge
concluded that the defenses of res judicata and sovereign
immunity combined to bar Plaintiffs Complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (R&R
these explicit findings by the Magistrate Judge, Plaintiff
fails to specifically object to the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions regarding res judicata, sovereign immunity, and
the applicability of these principles to the current case.
(See generally Plaintiffs Objections 1-2.) In fact,
Plaintiff makes no legal argument on either issue and he
offers no authority to contradict the Magistrate Judge's
conclusions. Rather, Plaintiffs Objections merely restate the
allegations and arguments that he raised in his Complaint and
in his Response to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No.
12). (See id.)
the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge has thoroughly and
thoughtfully considered Plaintiffs previous arguments, and
therefore, the Court views Plaintiffs failure to make
specific objections to the R&R as a functional
waiver of its stated conclusions. See United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007)
("Section 636(b)(1) does not countenance a form of
generalized objection to cover all issues addressed by the
magistrate judge; it contemplates that a party's
objection to a magistrate judge's report be specific and
particularized...."); Page v. Lee, 337 F.3d
411, 416 n.3 (4th Cir. 2003) ("[P]etitioner's
failure to object to the magistrate judge's
recommendation with the specificity required by the Rule is,
standing alone, a sufficient basis upon which to affirm the
judgment of the district court...."); see also Van
Harris v. United States, 473 F.Supp.2d 723, 724 (S.D.
W.Va. 2007) ("The failure of a party to object to a
Magistrate's findings and recommendation constitutes a
waiver of de novo review by the district court and a waiver
of appellate review by the circuit court of appeals."
having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's conclusions, and
having received no new argument from the parties as to why
the R&R should be reconsidered, the Court HEREBY ACCEPTS
and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation in full as the OPINION of this Court.
the Court ORDERS that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF
No. 9) is GRANTED, Plaintiffs Motion for a Hearing (ECF No.
4) is DENIED AS MOOT, and Plaintiffs Complaint (ECF No. 3) is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
Plaintiff wish to appeal this Order, written notice of appeal
must be filed with the Clerk of Court within thirty (30) days
of the date of entry hereof. Failure to file a notice of
appeal within the stated period may result in the loss of the
right to appeal.
Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to all counsel
of record and to the Plaintiff who is pro se.
 This Court takes judicial notice of
the District of Maryland's decision. See United
States v. Harris,331 F.2d 600, 601 (6th Cir. 1964)
("[I]t [is not] necessary that the Court be requested to
take judicial notice of a fact before it is authorized to do
so. The ...