MEMORANDUM

JAMES M. MUNLEY, District Judge.

Before the court for disposition is Chief Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson's report and recommendation (hereinafter "R&R"). (Doc. 81). The R&R proposes granting Defendant Bank of America's (hereinafter "defendant") motion for summary judgment (Doc. 69) and dismissing Plaintiffs John Joseph Liptok and a putative class's (hereinafter "plaintiffs") motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment (Doc. 78). For the following reasons, we will adopt the R&R.

Background

Plaintiffs reside in one half of a duplex property located in Pottsville, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 71, Def.'s Concise Statement of Material Facts (hereinafter "SOF") ¶ 1).1 They allege the defendant owned the other half of the duplex adjoined to plaintiffs' property. (SOF ¶ 6). Defendant foreclosed its half of the duplex in December 2011, and obtained title to it from a previous owner on or about December 12, 2013. (SOF ¶ 10). On March 5, 2014, defendant sold the property. (SOF ¶ 11). Plaintiffs aver that defendant's "disrepair" of its half of the duplex caused water and structural damages to the entire property. (SOF ¶¶ 11, 13). Plaintiffs have not, however, identified when the alleged damage occurred. (SOF ¶ 14).

On October 20, 2016, Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson recommended granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 71). Plaintiffs filed timely objections to the R&R, and they are now ripe for disposition.2

Legal Standard

In disposing of objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report against which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1085 (3d Cir. 1983). The court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 877 (3d Cir. 1987). The district court judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions. Id.

Discussion

Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs' complaint for three reasons: (1) plaintiffs failed to timely oppose the motion; (2) plaintiffs have failed to prosecute their action at all stages of litigation; and (3) plaintiffs' claims fail on their merits. We do not address the R&R's reasoning, however, because plaintiffs have failed to specifically object to it. As a result, we must adopt the R&R and dismiss plaintiffs' complaint.

As written above, in disposing of objections to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the report against which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c); see also Sullivan, 723 F.2d at 1085. To obtain de novo review, however, federal law requires a party's objections to be specific. Goney v. Clark, 749 F.2d 5, 6 (3d Cir. 1984) (per curiam).

Here, plaintiffs do not reference, let alone object to, any of the rationale discussed in the R&R. While they are adept at expressing their frustrations with the legal system, plaintiffs' response to the R&R amounts to mere surplusage rather than specific, substantive legal argument requiring our consideration. As plaintiffs have not made specific objections to the R&R, they are not entitled to de novo review.3 Therefore, we will adopt the R&R, grant defendant's motion for summary judgment, and dismiss plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment.4

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, we will overrule plaintiffs' objections and adopt Chief Magistrate Judge Carlson's R&R granting defendant's motion for summary judgment and dismissing plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the motion for summary judgment. An appropriate Order follows.