Taylor v. Saul ( 2019 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY TINA TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-cv-00117 ANDREW SAUL COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 13], filed June 10, 2019, and the Defendant’s (“Commissioner”) Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings/Defendant’s Decision [Doc. 16], filed July 15, 2019. This action was previously referred to United States Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on October 3, 2019. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request for Judgment on the Pleadings; grant the Commissioner’s Request for Judgment on the Pleadings; affirm the Commissioner’s decision, and dismiss this action, with prejudice, and remove it 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) (emphasis added) (“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.”). 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) (noting 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 21, 2019. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 17], DENIES Plaintiffs request for Judgment on the Pleadings, GRANTS the Commissioner’s request for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. 16], AFFIRMS the Commissioner’s decision, 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. ENTERED: December 11, 2019 ZuAN