Joseph Edmonds v. Social Security Disability, No. 14-1293 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1293 JOSEPH H. EDMONDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00539-JRS) Submitted: May 29, 2014 Decided: June 2, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph H. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Virginia, for Appellee. Robin Perrin Meier, Attorneys, Richmond, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Edmonds appeals the district court s orders dismissing his civil action for disability benefits and denying his motion for reconsideration. this case to a § 636(b)(1)(B) magistrate (2012). The district court referred judge The pursuant magistrate to 28 judge U.S.C. recommended granting the agency s motion to dismiss and advised Edmonds 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); Edmonds has been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see also waived Thomas v. appellate Arn, 474 review by U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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.