Shrewsbury v. Kijakazi, No. 5:2021cv00576 - Document 8 (S.D.W. Va. 2022)
Court Description: ORDER adopting the 7 Proposed Findings and Recommendations, dismisses the 2 Complaint, and dismisses this matter. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 4/5/2022. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (lca)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Shrewsbury v. Kijakazi Doc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA AT BECKLEY TIMOTHY RAY SHREWSBURY, Plaintiff, v. CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:21-cv-00576 KILOLO KIJAKAZI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant. ORDER Pending is Plaintiff’s Complaint for Review of the Decision of the Commissioner of Social Security [Doc. 2], filed October 27, 2021. This action was previously referred to the Honorable Cheryl A. Eifert, United States Magistrate Judge, for submission of proposed findings and a recommendation (“PF&R”). Magistrate Judge Eifert issued a Show Cause Order on February 1, 2022, ordering Plaintiff to show cause by February 15, 2022, as to why service had not been properly effected on Defendant. [Doc. 6]. Plaintiff failed to respond. Magistrate Judge Eifert filed her PF&R on March 8, 2022. [Doc. 7]. Magistrate Judge Eifert recommended that the Court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice, and remove this action from the Court’s 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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 March 25, 2022. No objections were filed. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the PF&R [Doc. 7], DISMISSES the Complaint without prejudice [Doc. 2], and DISMISSES the matter. The Court directs the Clerk to transmit a copy of this Order to any counsel of record and any unrepresented party. ENTER: April 5, 2022 2
]]>
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.
