Leslie McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Sec

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:14-cv-02918-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court. [999909151]. Mailed to: Leslie McCoy. [16-1078]

Appeal: 16-1078

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/12/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1078

LESLIE MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-02918-JMC)

Submitted:

July 28, 2016

Decided:

August 12, 2016

Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leslie McCoy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-1078

Doc: 8

Filed: 08/12/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Leslie McCoy appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

Commissioner’s
benefits.

judge’s

denial

The

magistrate

of

timely

judge’s

recommendation
McCoy’s

filing

to

application

of

recommendation

specific
is

uphold
for

disability

objections

necessary

the

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).

However, because McCoy, who is proceeding pro se, was not warned
of

the

consequences

of

filing

non-specific

objections,

we

decline to enforce the waiver.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that McCoy’s use of
crutches is not medically necessary and thus does not warrant
further limitation of her residual functional capacity.

See

Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2012)

(“[A]

reviewing

court

is

required

to

uphold

the

determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards
and

the

ALJ’s

evidence.”).

factual

findings

are

supported

by

substantial

We decline to consider the new claims and evidence

McCoy seeks to present on appeal because they fail to meet the
requirements

set

forth

in

42
2

U.S.C.

§ 405(g)

(2012).

Appeal: 16-1078

Doc: 8

Accordingly,
dispense

Filed: 08/12/2016

we

with

contentions

are

affirm
oral

the

district

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

court’s

because

presented

in

the
the

judgment.

facts

We

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3