UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

LEONILA HAMRICK,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00717

SAM'S EAST, INC., doing business as SAM'S CLUB,

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Pending is Defendant Sam’s East, Inc., d/b/a Sam’s Club (“Sam’s”), Motion for Summary Judgment, filed on April 17, 2025. [ECF 28]. Ms. Hamrick instituted this action in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on September 29, 2023. [ECF 1]. Sam’s removed based on diversity jurisdiction on November 3, 2023. [ECF 1]. The case was previously referred to the Honorable Dwane L. Tinsley, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on August 19, 2025. [ECF 37]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court grant Sam’s Motion for Summary Judgment and remove this matter from the docket. [Id.]. Objections were due September 5, 2025. Ms. Hamrick’s objections were filed on September 12, 2025. [ECF 38]. The Court need not review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge as to those portions of the findings or recommendation to which no objections are addressed. See Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also

(b)(1) (“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.” (emphasis

added)). “Importantly, objections need not be novel to be sufficiently specific.” Elijah v. Dunbar,

(4th Cir. 2023). “[T]o preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette,

(4th Cir. 2007). “If the grounds for objection are clear, district court judges must consider them de novo, or else run afoul of both § 636(b)(1) and Article III.” Elijah,

. Further, the Court need not conduct de novo review 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.” Orpiano v. Johnson,

(4th Cir. 1982). Ms. Hamrick’s objection fails to direct the Court to any specific errors in the PF&R. In her 27-page filing, Ms. Hamrick expounds on factual details, seemingly in response to the PF&R and other discovery proceedings. [ECF 38]. Ms. Hamrick describes the procedural history, explains her perspective of certain incidents, and realleges her demands for relief. [Id.]. However, none of these details guide the Court toward the errors that Ms. Hamrick would like the Court to correct. The only objection states “to the Sam’s Club recomendation [sic] to assign the case to Honorable Frank W. Volk. To also not grant for the dismissed the case.” [Id. at 1]. Because the grounds for objection are not sufficiently clear, the Court need not conduct a review of Magistrate Judge Tinsley’s PF&R.

Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Ms. Hamrick’s objections and GRANTS the Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF 28]. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: October 14, 2025

CQawiiy Frank W. Volk Giems = Chief United States District Judge