Gina Flores-Claridy v. Commissioner of Social Securit

Filing 920090121

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2239 GINA M. FLORES-CLARIDY, on behalf of C.M.B., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?