Workman v. Kijakazi, No. 2:2021cv00383 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2021)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER directing that the findings made in the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendations are adopted by the court and incorporated herein; Ms. Workman's 2 Complaint is dismissed without prejudice and this civil action is removed from the docket. Signed by Senior Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 11/15/2021. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties) (btm)

Download PDF
Workman v. Kijakazi Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT CHARLESTON SANDRA LEIGH WORKMAN, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 2:21-cv-00383 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Pending is Sandra Leigh Workman’s complaint (ECF 2) filed July 2, 2021, seeking reversal of the Administrative Law Judge’s decision denying her claim for disability benefits. 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”). On October 7, 2021, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn ordered Ms. Workman to show cause within ten days as to why he should not recommend dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) for failure to make service within ninety (90) days. See ECF 6. Ms. Workman did not respond. Thereafter, Magistrate Judge Aboulhosn filed his PF&R (ECF 7) on Dockets.Justia.com October 19, 2021, recommending that the court dismiss Ms. Workman’s complaint without prejudice for failure to prosecute and remove this matter from the docket. 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.” 2 Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). case were due on November 5, 2021. Objections in this No objections were filed. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the findings made in the PF&R (ECF 7) are ADOPTED by the court and incorporated herein. It is further ORDERED that Ms. Workman’s complaint (ECF 2) is DISMISSED without prejudice and this civil action is REMOVED from the docket. The Clerk is directed to transmit copies of this memorandum opinion and order to all counsel of record and to any unrepresented parties. ENTER: November 15, 2021 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.