Gloria Crittendon v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 14-1540 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1540 GLORIA A. CRITTENDON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:13-cv-00534-REP) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 25, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria A. Crittendon, 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 Robin Perrin Meier, Attorneys, Richmond, Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Gloria A. Crittendon seeks to appeal the district court s order granting Defendant s motion for summary judgment on her complaint seeking judicial review of the denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2012). The magistrate judge recommended granting Defendant s motion for summary judgment and advised Crittendon 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 recommendation specific is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see Crittendon has objections also Thomas v. Arn, waived appellate review after receiving proper 474 by notice. U.S. 140 failing (1985). to Accordingly, file 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.