Hunt v. Bisignano

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

CHARLESTON DIVISION

PAUL H.,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-00511

FRANK BISIGNANO Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER

This action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings of fact and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. On August 13, 2025, Judge Tinsley submitted his Proposed Findings & Recommendation [ECF No. 11] (“PF&R”) and recommended that the court DENY the claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [ECF Nos. 6, 7], GRANT the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision below [ECF No. 9], AFFIRM the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISS this matter from the court’s docket. Neither party filed objections to the PF&R nor sought an extension of time. A district 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)(C). This court is not, however, required to 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. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Because the parties have not filed objections in this case, the court accepts and incorporates herein the PF&R and orders judgment consistent therewith. The court DENIES the claimant’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [ECF Nos. 6, 7], GRANTS the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision below [ECF No. 9], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES the case with prejudice, and DIRECTS this action to be removed from the docket. The court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented parties.

ENTER: September 2, 2025

G 6G pe STATES DISTRICT JUDGE