Tyvette McBride v. Social Security, No. 11-2076 (4th Cir. 2012)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-2076 TYVETTE MCBRIDE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee, and SSA (Social Security Administration), Party-in Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00440-MSD-TEM) Submitted: February 23, 2012 Decided: February 27, 2012 Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyvette McBride, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lynn Watt, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tyvette McBride appeals the district court s order dismissing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) her complaint seeking judicial review of the Commissioner s denial of her claims for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2011). The magistrate judge recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b) and advised McBride that failure to file timely 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 noncompliance. Cir. 1985); McBride objections warned of the also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, 474 review by proper notice. affirm the judgment of the district court. oral argument consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been because the facts 2 and legal U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we We dispense with 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.