Opinion
22-1150
02-23-2023
ANGEL P., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, United States Government Social Security Administration Office of Central Operations, Defendant-Appellee.
Angel P., Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Eugene Roach, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: February 21, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00649-JD)
Angel P., Appellant Pro Se.
Patrick Eugene Roach, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Angel P. appeals the district court's order granting the Commissioner's motion to dismiss her complaint as untimely filed. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion to dismiss and advised Angel P. that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could result in forfeiture of 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Angel P. forfeited appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation after receiving proper notice. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, "to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.