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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?