Boland v. Astrue

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-2177
THOMAS PAUL BOLAND,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner Social Security
Administration,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:08-cv-00798-HEH)
Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Paul Boland, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland
Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Paul Boland appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Boland’s
applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental
security income. We affirm.
The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied
and advised Boland that failure to file timely objections to the
magistrate judge’s proposed findings, conclusions, and
recommendations could waive appellate review of a district
court’s order based upon those recommendations. 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).
In his objection to the magistrate judge’s report,
Boland raised a single issue: whether the Administrative Law
Judge should have heard testimony from a vocational expert. On
appeal of the district court’s order, however, Boland seeks to
raise three new issues that he did not present in his
objections. A party “waives a right to appellate review of
particular issues [in a magistrate judge’s report] by failing to
2
file timely objections specifically directed to those issues.”
United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007).
To preserve an issue for appeal, an objection must have
“sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district
court of the true ground for the objection.” Id. at 622.
Because Boland failed to file objections “specifically directed
to” these issues, he has waived these claims on appeal.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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
3