Sharee Dawn Ballard v. Frank Bisignano, Commissioner of Social Security

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY

SHAREE DAWN BALLARD Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:25-cv-00045

FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant.

ORDER Pending is Plaintiff Sharee Dawn Ballard’s Request for Judgment on the Pleadings [ECF 9], filed May 21, 2025. 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”). Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on December 17, 2025. [See ECF 11]. Magistrate Judge Tinsley recommended that the Court (1) grant Plaintiff’s Request for Judgment on the Pleadings insofar as it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision, (2) deny the Commissioner’s request to affirm the decision, (3) reverse the final decision of the Commissioner, and (4) remand this matter pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R. [Id. at 34].

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, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(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 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. De Leon- Ramirez, 925 F.3d 177, 181 (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, 889 F.2d 1363, 1366 (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, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). Objections in this case were due on December 31, 2025. No objections were filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [ECF 11], GRANTS Plaintiffs Request for Judgment on the Pleadings insofar as it requests remand of the Commissioner’s decision [ECF 9], DENIES Defendant’s request to affirm the Commissioner’s decision [ECF 10], REVERSES the Commissioner’s final decision, REMANDS this matter for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), and DISMISSES this matter from the docket.

The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to counsel of record and any unrepresented party.

ENTER: January 20, 2026 Sandy Va Cae Frank W. Volk “eco Chief United States District Judge