Carter v. Kijakazi ( 2021 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY CHARLES MICHAEL CARTER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00084 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s Complaint for Review of the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Doc. 1], filed February 2, 2021. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on August 23, 2021. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court adopt the PF&R [Doc. 13], grant Plaintiff’s request for remand [Doc. 11], deny Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 12], reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, and remand the matter back to the Commissioner for further proceedings. 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 September 9, 2021. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 13], GRANTS Plaintiff's request for remand [Doc. 11], DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 12], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for further proceedings. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: December 29, 2021 @Ozela i Ky Frank W. Volk