Court Opinion

ID: 9375114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-24 21:01:20.199419+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:56.093770
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1150      Doc: 11         Filed: 02/23/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1150

        ANGEL P.,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, United States
        Government Social Security Administration Office of Central Operations,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
        Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00649-JD)

        Submitted: February 21, 2023                                 Decided: February 23, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Angel P., Appellant Pro Se.   Patrick Eugene Roach, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1150         Doc: 11       Filed: 02/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Angel P. appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion to

        dismiss her complaint as untimely filed. The district court referred this case to a magistrate

        judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended granting

        the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and advised Angel P. that failure to file timely,

        specific objections to this recommendation could result in forfeiture of 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). Angel P. forfeited appellate review by

        failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after

        receiving proper notice. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal

        an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or

        recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district

        court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

        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