Eric L. Clay v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1285
ERIC L. CLAY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01119-LCB-JEP)
Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 6, 2015
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric L. Clay, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa G. Smoller, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Eric L. Clay appeals the district court’s order adopting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the
Commissioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and
upholding the decision of the Commissioner to deny Clay’s
application for disability insurance 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 Clay that failure to file
timely, specific 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). Clay has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving
proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
district court.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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

-- 3 of 3 --