Thomas Boland v. Michael Astrue

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:08-cv-00798-HEH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998411903] [09-2177]

Thomas Boland v. Michael Astrue

Doc. 0

Case: 09-2177 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2177 THOMAS PAUL BOLAND, Plaintiff ­ Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Administration, Commissioner Social Security

Defendant ­ Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00798-HEH) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Paul Boland, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-2177 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Thomas Paul Boland appeals the district court's order accepting affirming the the recommendation Commissioner's of the magistrate to deny judge and

decision

Boland's

applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm.

The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Boland that failure to file timely objections to the magistrate judge's could based proposed waive upon findings, conclusions, of a and

recommendations court's filing order of

appellate

review

district timely judge's

those

recommendations. to a

The

specific

objections

magistrate

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 (1985). In his objection to the magistrate judge's report,

Boland raised a single issue: whether the Administrative Law Judge should have heard testimony from a vocational expert. On

appeal of the district court's order, however, Boland seeks to raise three new issues that he did not present in his

objections.

A party "waives a right to appellate review of

particular issues [in a magistrate judge's report] by failing to 2

Case: 09-2177 Document: 10

Date Filed: 08/26/2010

Page: 3

file timely objections specifically directed to those issues." United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). To preserve an issue for appeal, an objection must have

"sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection." Id. at 622.

Because Boland failed to file objections "specifically directed to" these issues, he has waived these claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We

legal

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

AFFIRMED

3