Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration

20-1108United States Court Of Appeals For The 4th Circuit21 mag 2020

Testo completo

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1108

TRENICA RASHELL SMITH MINGO,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (8:19-cv-00441-RBH)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 21, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:

Trenica Rashell Smith Mingo appeals the district court’s order upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Mingo’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) (2018). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and
advised Mingo 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Although Mingo received proper notice
and filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, she has waived appellate
review because the objections were untimely. 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

Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude

Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.