Tawanda Blair v. Commissioner of SSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion transfer case [998872028-2] Originating case number: 8:11-cv-02099-RMG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998915189]. Mailed to: Blair. [12-1434]

Appeal: 12-1434

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/14/2012

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1434

TAWANDA BLAIR, on behalf of ILB,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-02099-RMG)

Submitted:

August 7, 2012

Decided:

August 14, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tawanda Blair, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-1434

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/14/2012

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Tawanda
upholding

the

Blair

appeals

Commissioner’s

supplemental security income.
case

to

a

magistrate

the

denial

district
of

her

court’s

order

application

for

The district court referred this

judge

pursuant

§ 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2012).

to

28

U.S.C.A.

The magistrate judge

recommended that relief be denied and advised Blair that failure
to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate

review

of

a

district

court

order

based

upon

the

recommendation.
The
magistrate

timely

judge’s

filing

of

recommendation

specific
is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

noncompliance.

have

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th

Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985).

Blair

has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
receiving proper notice.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of

the district court.
We deny the motion to transfer and dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2