Carrie Williams v. Commissioner of S.S.A.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 9:14-cv-04788-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999589822].. [15-1208]

Appeal: 15-1208

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1208

CARRIE M. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD,
Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge.
(9:14-cv-04788-DCN)

Submitted:

May 21, 2015

Decided:

May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carrie M. Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1208

Doc: 5

Filed: 05/26/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Carrie
adopting
Williams’

M.

the

Williams
magistrate

civil

action

appeals

the

judge’s
seeking

disability insurance benefits.

district

court’s

recommendation
review

of

to

the

order
dismiss

denial

of

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 dismissing the action

and advised Williams that failure to file timely objections to
this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district
court

order

based

upon

the

recommendation.

Despite

this

warning, Williams failed to object to the magistrate judge’s
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).

Williams has waived appellate

review by failing to file objections.
the district court’s judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm

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