Sadler v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1383
    DALE L. SADLER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant – Appellee,
    and
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Party-in-Interest.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00689-REP)
    Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   August 31, 2010
    Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Dale L. Sadler, Appellant Pro Se. Debra J. Prillaman, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Dale     L.     Sadler    appeals      the     district         court’s    order
    denying relief on his complaint.                    The district court referred
    this     case   to   a     magistrate       judge    pursuant          to    
    28 U.S.C.A. § 636
    (b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2010).                        The magistrate judge
    recommended       that    relief     be    denied        and    advised      Sadler     that
    failure to file timely objections to 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).                              Sadler
    has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after
    receiving proper notice.             Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
    the district court and deny Sadler’s motion to appoint counsel.
    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
    legal    contentions        are   adequately       presented         in     the    materials
    before    the   court      and    argument       would    not    aid      the     decisional
    process.
    AFFIRMED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1383

Judges: King, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/31/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024