Michael Hudgens v. Commissioner Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:13-cv-03108-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999650439]. Mailed to: Michael Hudgens. [15-1134]

Appeal: 15-1134

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1134

MICHAEL HUDGENS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(6:13-cv-03108-TMC)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Hudgens, Appellant Pro Se.
Molly Elizabeth Carter,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts; William
Norman Nettles, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, II,
Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1134

Doc: 11

Filed: 08/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Michael

Hudgens

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits.

The

district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.

recommended
failure

§ 636(b)(1)(B)

that

to

relief

file

be

(2012).
denied

timely,

The

and

specific

magistrate

advised

judge

Hudgens

objections

to

that
this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court
order based upon the recommendation.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review
of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have
been warned of the consequences of noncompliance.

Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas
v.

Arn,

474

U.S.

140

(1985).

Hudgens

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

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

2