Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-01108/USCOURTS-ca4-20-01108-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo
Appellant
Andrew Saul
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1108

TRENICA RASHELL SMITH MINGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (8:19-cv-00441-RBH)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1108 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo appeals the district court’s order upholding the 

Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Mingo’s application for disability insurance benefits. 

The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Mingo 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. 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). Although Mingo received proper notice 

and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, she has waived appellate 

review because the objections were untimely. 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1108 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/21/2020 Pg: 2 of 2