Shrewsbury v. O'Malley

Filing 9

ORDER adopting the 8 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn; GRANTING the Plaintiff's 5 request for remand; DENYING Commissioner O'Malley's 6 request to affirm the decision; REVERSING the final decisi on of the Commissioner; REMANDING this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R; and DISMISSING this case, WITH PREJUDICE, and removing it from the docket. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 6/4/2024. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (jsa)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BECKLEY
HAROLD SHREWSBURY,
Plaintiff,
v.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:24-cv-00004

MARTIN J. O’Malley,
Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration
Defendant.
ORDER
Pending are (1) Plaintiff Harold Shrewbury’s Complaint seeking review of a final
decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Doc. 1], filed on January 2, 2024, (2) Plaintiff’s
Brief in Support of Judgment on the Pleadings and request for remand [Doc. 5], filed on March
25, 2024, and (3) Defendant Commissioner O’Malley’s Brief in Support of the Pleadings and
request to affirm the decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 6], filed April 24, 2024. This action was
previously referred to the Honorable Omar J. Aboulhosn, United States Magistrate Judge, for
submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). [Doc. 2]. Magistrate Judge
Aboulhosn filed his PF&R on May 7, 2024. [Doc. 8]. Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn recommended
that the Court grant the Plaintiff’s request for remand [Doc. 5], deny the Defendant’s request to
affirm the decision of the Commissioner [Doc. 6], reverse the final decision of the Commissioner,
and remand the matter to the Commissioner for further administrative action. [Doc. 8].
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.

2

§ 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 LeonRamirez, 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 May 21, 2024.
[Doc. 8]. No objections were filed.
Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 8], GRANTS the Plaintiff’s
request for remand [Doc. 5], DENIES Commissioner O’Malley’s request to affirm the decision
[Doc. 6], REVERSES the final decision of the Commissioner, REMANDS this matter pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) for further administrative proceedings consistent with the PF&R, and
DISMISSES this case, WITH PREJUDICE, and removes it from the docket.
The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record
and any unrepresented party.

ENTERED:

2

June 4, 2024