Case Name: Joseph H. EDMONDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-02
Citations: 573 F. App'x 303
Docket Number: No. 14-1293
Parties: Joseph H. EDMONDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 303–304

Head Matter:
Joseph H. EDMONDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 14-1293.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2014.
Decided: June 2, 2014.
Joseph H. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Robin Perrin Meier, Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Edmonds appeals the district court's orders dismissing his civil action for disability benefits and denying his motion for reconsideration. 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 granting the agency's motion to dismiss and advised Edmonds that failure to file timely 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). Edmonds has waived appellate review by failing to file 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.