Leslie Yuengal v. Michael Astrue, No. 11-1250 (4th Cir. 2011)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1250 LESLIE YUENGAL, Plaintiff Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (4:10-cv-00042-FL) Submitted: July 28, 2011 Decided: August 1, 2011 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie Yuengal, Appellant Pro Se. Eskunder Boyd, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Rudolph A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leslie upholding the benefits under Yuengal appeals Commissioner the Social the of district Social Security court s Security s Act. The order denial district of court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). recommended upholding the Commissioner s The magistrate judge decision and advised Yuengal that failure to file timely and specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have 1985); Yuengal has warned of the see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by objections after receiving proper notice. Yuengal s consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th noncompliance. Cir. been motion for appointment of U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny counsel and affirm the district court s judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.