RATLIFF v. COLVIN, 14-1486. (2014)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20140825090
Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Aug. 25, 2014
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Leon Ratliff appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint for review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. 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 that relief be denied and advised Ratliff that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation coul
Summary: UNPUBLISHED Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM. Leon Ratliff appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint for review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. 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 that relief be denied and advised Ratliff that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could..
More
UNPUBLISHED
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM.
Leon Ratliff appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint for review of the Social Security Administration's denial of disability benefits. 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 that relief be denied and advised Ratliff 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). Ratliff has waived appellate review by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. 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.
Source: Leagle
