Carmella Sue Porter v. Frank Bisignano, Acting Commissioner for the Social...

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

CARMELLA SUE PORTER, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:25-cv-00110 FRANK BISIGNANO, Acting Commissioner for the Social Security Administration, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Carmella Sue Porter’s (“Plaintiff”) Brief in Support of Complaint, (ECF No. 5), and Defendant, the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“Defendant Commissioner”) Brief in Support of Defendant’s Decision, (ECF No 8). By standing order, this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Dwane L. Tinsley for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). (ECF No. 2.)

Magistrate Judge Tinsley filed his PF&R on December 11, 2025, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s request to reverse Defendant Commissioner’s decision, grant Defendant Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision, affirm the final decision of Defendant Commissioner, and dismiss this action. (ECF No. 10 at 2.)

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, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Failure to file timely objections constitutes a waiver of de novo review and the plaintiff’s right to appeal this Court’s Order. 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 December 26, 2025. To date, no objections have been filed.

Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R, (ECF No. 10), DENIES Plaintiff's request to reverse Defendant’s decision, (ECF No. 5), GRANTS Defendant Commissioner’s request to affirm his decision, (ECF No. 8), AFFIRMS the final decision of Defendant Commissioner, and DISMISSES this action from the Court’s docket.

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: February 12, 2026 Le JOHNSTON t—~™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE