Opinion
Civil Action 5:22-cv-00216
01-04-2023
JOSHUA B., Plaintiff, v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social security, Defendant.
ORDER
FRANK W. VOLK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pending are Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Complaint and Motion for Remand [Doc. 12], filed October 12, 2022, and Defendant's Brief in Support of Defendant's Decision [Doc. 13], filed November 14, 2022. 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”). [Doc. 3]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on December 8, 2022. [Doc. 15]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended that the Court deny Plaintiff's request for remand, grant Defendant's request to affirm her decision, affirm Defendant's final decision, and dismiss this action from the Court's docket. Id. at 16-17.
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 December 22, 2022. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 15], DENIES Plaintiff's request for remand, GRANTS Defendant's request to affirm her decision, AFFIRMS Defendant's final 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.