Leon Ratliff v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00284-CCE-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999421838]. Mailed to: Ratliff. [14-1486]

Appeal: 14-1486

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1486

LEON RATLIFF,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00284-CCE-LPA)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leon Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se. Luis Antonio Pere, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Lisa G. Smoller, Special Assistant
United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1486

Doc: 12

Filed: 08/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Leon
denying

Ratliff

relief

on

appeals

his

the

complaint

district

for

court’s

review

of

order

the

Social

Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

that

relief

be

(2012).
denied

The

and

magistrate

advised

judge

Ratliff

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

specific

recommendation

is

objections

necessary

to

to

a

preserve

appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when
the

parties

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

Ratliff

objections

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

see

has

been

also

waived

after

Thomas

v.

appellate

receiving

Arn,

474

review

by

proper

notice.

U.S.

140

failing

(1985).
to

file

Accordingly,

we

affirm the judgment of the district court.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 14-1486

before

Doc: 12

this

court

Filed: 08/25/2014

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3