Court Opinion

ID: 9389387
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:00:54.992101+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.124930
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1969      Doc: 11         Filed: 04/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1969

        WILLIAM CURTIS HOOD,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. David J. Novak, District Judge. (3:21-cv-00105-DJN)

        Submitted: April 20, 2023                                         Decided: April 24, 2023

        Before KING and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        William Curtis Hood, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1969         Doc: 11      Filed: 04/24/2023     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               William Curtis Hood appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s

        denial of Hood’s application for social security disability insurance benefits. The district

        court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The

        magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Hood 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. 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). Hood has forfeited appellate review by

        failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation 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

                                                     2