Crittendon v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec. Admin.

Full title: GLORIA A. CRITTENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL…

Court: UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Aug 25, 2014

582 F. App'x 195 (4th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 14-1540

08-25-2014

GLORIA A. CRITTENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee.

Gloria A. Crittendon, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Perrin Meier, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00534-REP) Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria A. Crittendon, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Perrin Meier, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Gloria A. Crittendon seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment on her complaint seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and advised Crittendon that failure to file timely 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). Crittendon has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 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