Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01208/USCOURTS-ca4-15-01208-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Commissioner of Social Security Administration
Appellee
Social Security Administrative Record

Carrie M. Williams
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1208

CARRIE M. WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee,

v.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD,

Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(9:14-cv-04788-DCN)

Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carrie M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1208 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Carrie M. Williams appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss 

Williams’ civil action seeking review of the denial of 

disability insurance 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 dismissing the action 

and advised Williams 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, Williams failed to 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). Williams has waived appellate 

review by failing to file objections. Accordingly, we affirm 

the district court’s judgment. 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: 15-1208 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 2