Rhodes v. O'Malley

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

AMANDA BETH RHODES,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:23-cv-781

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Amanda Rhodes’ Motion to Remand and Reverse the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying her claims for disability insurance benefits [Doc. 4], filed February 26, 2024. Also pending is Defendant Martin O’Malley’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 5], filed March 19, 2024. 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 22, 2024. Magistrate Judge Reeder recommended that the Court dismiss the case with prejudice and remove this matter from the Court’s 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 November 5, 2024. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to Remand [Doc. 4], DENIES Defendant’s Request to Affirm [Doc. 5], REVERSES and REMANDS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES the case WITH PREJUDICE. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: November 12, 2024

tb

Chief United States District Judge