Patricia Patterson v. Commissioner, No. 19-1326 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1326 PATRICIA T. PATTERSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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. 2 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 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.
