Thomas Boland v. Michael Astrue, No. 09-2177 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2177 THOMAS PAUL BOLAND, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Administration, Commissioner Social Security Defendant Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:08-cv-00798-HEH) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 26, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Paul Boland, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Thomas Paul Boland appeals the district court s order accepting the recommendation affirming the of Commissioner s the magistrate decision to judge deny and Boland s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We affirm. The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Boland that failure to file timely objections to the magistrate judge s recommendations court s order filing of proposed could based specific waive upon findings, appellate those conclusions, review of recommendations. objections to a a and district The magistrate timely judge s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the warned of the consequences of noncompliance. parties have been Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). In his objection to the magistrate judge s report, Boland raised a single issue: whether the Administrative Law Judge should have heard testimony from a vocational expert. On appeal of the district court s order, however, Boland seeks to raise three objections. new issues that he did not present in his A party waives a right to appellate review of particular issues [in a magistrate judge s report] by failing to 2 file timely objections specifically directed to those issues. United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 621 (4th Cir. 2007). To preserve an issue for appeal, an objection must have sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection. Id. at 622. Because Boland failed to file objections specifically directed to these issues, he has waived these claims on appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court s order. dispense with oral argument because the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
