Angel P. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1150 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1150
ANGEL P.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, United States
Government Social Security Administration Office of Central Operations,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (0:20-cv-00649-JD)
Submitted: February 21, 2023 Decided: February 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angel P., Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Eugene Roach, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1150 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/23/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Angel P. appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion to
dismiss her complaint as untimely filed. The district court referred this case to a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended granting
the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss and advised Angel P. that failure to file timely,
specific objections to this recommendation could result in forfeiture of 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Angel P. forfeited appellate review by
failing to timely file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after
receiving proper notice. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal
an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or
recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district
court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
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