Walton v. Kijakazi

District Court, S.D. West Virginia

Walton v. Kijakazi

Trial Court Opinion

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

CHARLESTON DIVISION

KAREN W.,

Plaintiff,

v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:23-cv-00044

KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner for the Social Security Administration,

Defendant.

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s complaint, which seeks review of the final decision of the Acting Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiff’s application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”). (ECF No. 2.) By Standing Order entered in this case on January 19, 2023, this action was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Omar J. Aboulhosn for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation for disposition (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 4.) Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on July 31, 2023, recommending that this Court grant Plaintiff’s request for remand, deny Defendant’s request to affirm the final decision, reverse the final decision of the Acting Commissioner, and remand this matter back to the Acting Commissioner for further proceedings pursuant to the fourth sentence of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g). (ECF No. 15.) This 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 1 to which no objections are addressed. Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 150

(1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review.

28 U.S.C. § 636

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

889 F.2d 1363, 1366

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

727 F.2d 91, 94

(4th Cir. 1984). In addition, this Court need not conduct a 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 to the PF&R were due on August 14, 2023. To date, no objections have been filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 15), REVERSES the final decision of the acting commissioner, DENIES the Acting Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision below, (ECF No. 13), GRANTS Plaintiff's request for remand, (ECF No. 12), and REMANDS this matter back to the Acting Commissioner pursuant to the fourth sentence of

42 U.S.C. § 405

(g) for further administrative proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: September 26, 2023

ty — ie JOHNSTON, CHIEF JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown