UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

DARRELL JONES, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00634 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration,

Respondent. ORDER Pending are Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings, filed on June 6, 2022 [Doc. 13], and Defendant’s request to affirm his decision, filed on August 4, 2022 [Doc. 16]. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on September 22, 2022. [Doc. 18]. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court grant Plaintiff’s request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that he requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision, deny the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision, reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, 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 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 October 6, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 18], GRANTS Plaintiffs request for judgment on the pleadings to the extent that he requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision [Doc. 13], DENIES the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision [Doc. 16], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant to sentence four of

(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, 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. ENTER: November 28, 2022 @Oelia ay Frank W. Volk “nes United States District Judge