Ralph A. v. Frank Bisignano

• Court: District Court, S.D. West Virginia
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 5:24-cv-00710
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

RALPH A., Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00710 FRANK BISIGNANO,

Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Ralph A.’s Request for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 7], filed March 5, 2025. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Joseph K. Reeder, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Reeder filed his PF&R on October 10, 2025. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s Request for Judgment on the Pleadings insofar as it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision, deny Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, and dismiss this matter from the docket. 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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(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)). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the Petitioner’s right to appeal the Court’s order. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also 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). 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, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on October 27, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 12], GRANTS Plaintiffs Request for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 7] insofar as it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision, DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision [Doc. 8], REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, and DISMISSES this matter from the docket. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: November 6, 2025

“ame Chief United States District Judge