Leslie McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1078
LESLIE MCCOY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (2:14-cv-02918-JMC)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 12, 2016
Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leslie McCoy, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Leslie McCoy appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the
Commissioner’s denial of McCoy’s application for disability
benefits. 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).
However, because McCoy, who is proceeding pro se, was not warned
of the consequences of filing non-specific objections, we
decline to enforce the waiver.
After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial
evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that McCoy’s use of
crutches is not medically necessary and thus does not warrant
further limitation of her residual functional capacity. See
Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2012) (“[A] reviewing court is required to uphold the
determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards
and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence.”). We decline to consider the new claims and evidence
McCoy seeks to present on appeal because they fail to meet the
requirements set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 --