Sharif Simmons v. Comm'r of Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 0:13-cv-00266-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999475998].. [14-1631]

Appeal: 14-1631

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/17/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1631

SHARIF SIMMONS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(0:13-cv-00266-TMC)

Submitted:

October 31, 2014

Decided:

November 17, 2014

Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sharif Simmons, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-1631

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/17/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sharif
accepting

the

affirming

the

Simmons

appeals

recommendation
Commissioner’s

the

of

district

the

denial

court’s

magistrate

of

judge

disability

benefits and supplemental security income.

order
and

insurance

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 that

relief be denied and advised Simmons that failure to timely file
specific written 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

also

Thomas

v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Simmons has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections

after

receiving

proper

notice.

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: 14-1631

before

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/17/2014

the

and

court

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3