Pamela Sue Bond v. Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1629
PAMELA SUE BOND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (4:13-cv-00046-JLK-JCH)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant
Regional Counsel, David Lance Leach, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Sue Bond appeals the district court’s order
dismissing the civil action Bond brought regarding her ongoing
attempts to obtain Social Security 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 dismissing the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and advised Bond that failure to file timely
objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review
of a district court order based on 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). Bond
has waived appellate review by failing to file specific
objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we
affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the pending
motion for clarification of the Early Retirement Benefit
previously awarded to Bond.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --