UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

AT BECKLEY

ZOANNE MILDRED COCHRAN, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:20-cv-00472 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Zoanne Mildred Cochran’s Complaint for Review of the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Doc. 2], filed July 10, 2020. 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 July 7, 2021. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court deny Ms. Cochran’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [Doc. 14], grant the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [Doc. 15], affirm the final decision of the Commissioner, and dismiss this action 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,

(1985); see also

(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

(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez,

(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,

(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,

(4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on July 21, 2021, if the PF&R was served electronically, or by July 26, 2021, if the PF&R was served by mail. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 16], DENIES Ms. Cochran’s request to reverse the Commissioner’s decision [Doc. 14], GRANTS the Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision [Doc. 15], AFFIRMS the final decision of the Commissioner, DISMISSES the Complaint [Doc. 2], 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: August 9, 2021 Oe we Frank W. Volk “nos United States District Judge