IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA

PATRICIA ANNE BLAKE,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:21CV54 (Kleeh) KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]

Pending before the Court are cross motions for summary judgment. ECF Nos. 13, 17. Pursuant to

and the local rules, the Court referred the action to United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Trumble for initial review. On January 14, 2022, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, affirm the Commissioner’s decision, and dismiss the case with prejudice. ECF No. 24. The R&R informed the parties regarding their right to file specific written objections to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. Specifically, the magistrate judge gave the parties fourteen (14) calendar days after being served with a copy of the magistrate judge’s recommended disposition to file “specific written objections, identifying the portions of the ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24]

Report and Recommendation to which objection is made, and the basis of such objection.” The R&R further warned them that the “[f]ailure to file written objections . . . shall constitute a waiver of de novo review by the District Court and a waiver of appellate review by the Circuit Court of Appeals.” When reviewing a magistrate judge’s R&R, the Court must review de novo only the portions to which an objection has been timely made.

(b)(1)(C). Otherwise, “the Court may adopt, without explanation, any of the magistrate judge’s recommendations” to which there are no objections. Dellarcirprete v. Gutierrez,

, 603–04 (N.D.W. Va. 2007) (citing Camby v. Davis,

(4th Cir. 1983)). Courts will uphold portions of a recommendation to which no objection has been made unless they are clearly erroneous. See Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

(4th Cir. 2005). Because no party has objected, the Court is under no obligation to conduct a de novo review. Accordingly, the Court reviewed the R&R for clear error. Upon careful review, and finding no clear error, the Court ADOPTS the R&R [ECF No. 24] and GRANTS summary judgment in favor of Defendant [ECF No. 17]. Plaintiff’s

Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. ECF No. 13. The Court AFFIRMS Defendant Commissioner Kilolo Kijakazi’s final decision. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment in favor of Blake v. Commissioner 1:21-Cv-54 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [ECF NO. 24] Defendant. This action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the Court’s active docket. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to counsel of record via electronic means. DATED: September 21, 2022

Tom 8 Bla THOMAS S. KLEEH, CHIEF JUDGE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA