Summary
finding the ALJ's failure to weigh a medical opinion harmless because the opinion was identical to another opinion in the record addressed by the ALJ
Summary of this case from Sineath v. ColvinOpinion
No. 11-1250
08-01-2011
LESLIE YUENGAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.
Leslie Yuengal, Appellant Pro Se. Eskunder Boyd, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Rudolph A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cv-00042-FL)
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie Yuengal, Appellant Pro Se. Eskunder Boyd, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Rudolph A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Leslie Yuengal appeals the district court's order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of benefits under the Social Security Act. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended upholding the Commissioner's decision and advised Yuengal that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Yuengal has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny Yuengal's motion for appointment of counsel and affirm the district court's judgment.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED