Gina Flores-Claridy v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing 920090121

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-2239

GINA M. FLORES-CLARIDY, on behalf of C.M.B., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Judge. (2:07-cv-00278-RBS-JEB)

District Court for Eastern Rebecca Beach Smith, District

Submitted:

January 15, 2009

Decided: January 21, 2009

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gina M. Flores-Claridy, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Gina M. Flores-Claridy appeals the district court's

order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social Security supported upon the the determination of that substantial evidence for

denial

Flores-Claridy's

application

insurance benefits on behalf of her son.

The district court

referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)(2006). The magistrate judge recommended that

relief be denied and advised Flores-Claridy that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Flores-Claridy failed to specifically

object to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a

judge's

recommendation

necessary

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of

noncompliance. Cir. 1985); see

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Flores-Claridy has waived appellate review by failing to timely file specific objections after receiving proper notice. We

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3