Patricia T. Patterson v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1326

PATRICIA T. PATTERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Margaret B. Seymour, Senior District Judge. (9:17-cv-01899-MBS)

Submitted: May 1, 2020 Decided: May 18, 2020

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
Patterson’s application for disability insurance benefits.
*
“In social security proceedings,
a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district court. That is, a
reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal
standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v.
Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
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. United States v.
Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
154-55 (1985). Because Patterson failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge’s
finding that the ALJ’s disability determination was supported by substantial evidence,
Patterson has waived appellate review of that determination. We further find no merit to
Patterson’s challenges to the propriety of the proceedings below.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of
disability insurance benefits. See Patterson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:17-cv-

*
The ALJ, however, awarded Patterson supplemental security income.

3

01899-MBS (D.S.C. filed Mar. 13, 2019 & entered Mar. 14, 2019). We grant Patterson’s
motion to exceed the length limitations for her informal brief but deny her motion for
default judgment and requests for damages. 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