Case Name: Michael HUDGENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-31
Citations: 614 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 15-1134
Parties: Michael HUDGENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 614
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
Michael HUDGENS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1134.
.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2015.
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.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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.