Pamela Bond v. SSA, No. 14-1629 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1629 PAMELA SUE BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:13-cv-00046-JLK-JCH) Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 24, 2014 Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, David Lance Leach, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pamela Sue Bond appeals the district court’s order dismissing the civil action Bond brought regarding her ongoing attempts to obtain Social Security disability benefits. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. recommended § 636(b)(1)(B) dismissing jurisdiction and the (2012). advised case Bond for that The lack magistrate of subject failure to judge matter file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based on 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. been warned of the consequences Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). has waived objections of appellate after review receiving by proper failing notice. to file Bond specific Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We deny the pending motion Retirement for clarification of the Early Benefit previously awarded to Bond. 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