Willis v. Kijakazi

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

RENEE DAWN W., Petitioner, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:22-cv-00074 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s Opening Brief [Doc. 14], filed June 6, 2022; the Commissioner’s Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision [Doc. 19], filed August 4, 2022; and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition [Doc. 24], filed September 9, 2022. This action 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 February 27, 2023. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision, grant the Commissioner’s request to affirm her decision, affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action. 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 March 24, 2023, by noon. [See Doc. 27]. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 25], GRANTS. the Commissioner’s request to affirm her decision [Doc. 19], DISMISSES the Plaintiff's request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [Doc. 14], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: March 27, 2023 @eiia i MS Frank W. Volk “tes United States District Judge