Gina M. Flores-Claridy, on behalf of C.M.B. v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-2239
GINA M. FLORES-CLARIDY, on behalf of C.M.B.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:07-cv-00278-RBS-JEB)
Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 21, 2009
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gina M. Flores-Claridy, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard
Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Gina M. Flores-Claridy appeals the district court’s
order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner of Social
Security upon the determination that substantial evidence
supported the denial of Flores-Claridy’s application for
insurance benefits on behalf of her son. The district court
referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B)(2006). The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Flores-Claridy that failure to file
timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate
review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.
Despite this warning, Flores-Claridy failed to specifically
object to the magistrate judge’s 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).
Flores-Claridy has waived appellate review by failing to timely
file specific objections after receiving proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --