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

PHILLIP DAMRON, Plaintiff, V. CIVIL ACTION No. 5:22-CV-152 Judge Bailey KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On this day, the above-styled matter came before this Court for consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge Michael John Aloi [Doc. 18]. Pursuant to this Court’s Local Rules, this action was referred to Magistrate Judge Aloi for submission of a proposed report and recommendation (“R&R”). Magistrate Judge Aloi filed his R&R on June 6, 2023, wherein he finds that the Commissioner's decision denying plaintiff's claim for disability insurance benefits does not contain legal error and is supported by substantial evidence. Magistrate Judge Aloi recommends that plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment be denied, defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment be granted, the decision of the Commissioner be affirmed, and this case be dismissed with prejudice. Pursuant to

(b)(1)(C), this Court is required to make a de novo review of those portions of the magistrate judge’s findings to which objection is made. However, the Court is not required to 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. Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Nor is this Court required to conduct a de novo review when the party makes only “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). In addition, failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the right to appeal this Court's Order.

(b)(1); Snyder v. Ridenour,

(4th Cir. 1989); United States v. Schronce,

(4th Cir. 1984). Pro se filings must be liberally construed and held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by licensed attorneys, however, courts are not required to create objections where none exist. Haines v. Kerner,

(1972); Gordon v. Leeke,

(4th Cir. 1971). Here, objections to Magistrate Judge Mazzone’s R&R were due within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the R&R, pursuant to

(b)(1) and Rule 72(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Having filed no objections within that time frame, plaintiff has waived his right to both de novo review and to appeal this Court’s Order pursuant to

(b)(1). Consequently, the R&R will be reviewed for clear error. Having reviewed the R&R for clear error, it is the opinion of this Court that the Report and Recommendation [Doc. 18] should be, and is, hereby ORDERED ADOPTED for the reasons more fully stated in the magistrate judge’s report. Accordingly, this Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff Phillip Damron’s Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 11] be

DENIED and Defendant’s Brief in Support of Her Motion for Summary Judgment [Doc. 14] be GRANTED. The decision of the Commissioner is AFFIRMED and this case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. This Court further DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment in favor of the defendant and to STRIKE this case from the active docket of this Court. It is so ORDERED. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this Order to any counsel of record herein. DATED: June 21, 2023.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE