Leon Ratliff v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 14-1486 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1486 LEON RATLIFF, Plaintiff Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:11-cv-00284-CCE-LPA) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon Ratliff, Appellant Pro Se. Luis Antonio Pere, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Lisa G. Smoller, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leon denying Ratliff relief on appeals his the complaint district for court s review of order the Social Security Administration s denial of disability benefits. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) that relief be (2012). denied The and magistrate advised judge Ratliff 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); Ratliff objections warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been also waived after Thomas v. appellate receiving Arn, 474 review by proper notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.