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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?