Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01134/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01134-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1134

MICHAEL HUDGENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:13-cv-03108-TMC)

Submitted: August 27, 2015 Decided: August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Hudgens, Appellant Pro Se. Molly Elizabeth Carter, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts; William 

Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, II, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1134 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Hudgens appeals the district court’s order 

affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits. 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 that relief be denied and advised Hudgens that 

failure to file timely, 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). Hudgens has waived appellate 

review by failing to file specific 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

Appeal: 15-1134 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/31/2015 Pg: 2 of 2