Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-02042/USCOURTS-ca4-07-02042-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Calhoun
Appellant
Social Security Administration
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-2042

LEROY CALHOUN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (2:06-cv-00362-WDK)

Submitted: February 26, 2008 Decided: March 11, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Calhoun, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-2042 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Calhoun appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Social Security Administration upon the

determination that substantial evidence supported the denial of

Calhoun’s applications 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)

(2000). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Calhoun that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Calhoun

failed to specifically object to the magistrate judge’s

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). Calhoun has waived appellate review by failing to

timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Appeal: 07-2042 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

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

Appeal: 07-2042 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/11/2008 Pg: 3 of 3