UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY JOANNE LYNN PLUMLEY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00384 FRANK BISIGNANO, Defendant. ORDER Pending are (1) Plaintiff’s Request for Remand [ECF 8], filed October 23, 2024,

and (2) Commissioner’s Request to Affirm the Final Decision [ECF 9], filed November 20, 2024. 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”). [ECF 3]. Magistrate Judge Tinsleyfiled his PF&R [ECF 11] on April 22, 2025. Magistrate Judge Tinsleyrecommended the Court grant Plaintiff’s Request for Remand [ECF 8], deny Commissioner’s Request to Affirm the Final Decision [ECF 9], reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to

(g). 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 May 9, 2025. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 11], GRANTS Plaintiffs Request for Remand [ECF 8], DENIES Commissioner’s Request to Affirm the Final Decision [ECF 9], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, and REMANDS the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative proceedings pursuant to

(g). The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: May 27, 2025

a a GJ Frank W. Volk “ieee = Chief United States District Judge