Gloria Crittendon v. Commissioner of Social Sec

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:13-cv-00534-REP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999421956]. Mailed to: Crittendon. [14-1540]

Appeal: 14-1540

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/25/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1540

GLORIA A. CRITTENDON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:13-cv-00534-REP)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 25, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gloria A. Crittendon, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States
Virginia, for Appellee.

Robin Perrin Meier,
Attorneys, Richmond,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1540

Doc: 9

Filed: 08/25/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

A.

seeks

PER CURIAM:
Gloria

Crittendon

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment
on her complaint seeking judicial review of the denial of her
application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income.

The district court referred this case to a

magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012).
The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendant’s motion for
summary judgment and advised Crittendon 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

have

noncompliance.
Cir.

1985);

been

warned

of

the

consequences

of

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

Crittendon

has

objections

also

Thomas v.

Arn,

waived

appellate

review

after

receiving

proper

474
by

notice.

U.S.

140

failing

(1985).
to

Accordingly,

file
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: 14-1540

before

Doc: 9

this

Filed: 08/25/2014

court

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3