Sharif Simmons v. Comm'r of Social Security, No. 14-1631 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1631 SHARIF SIMMONS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (0:13-cv-00266-TMC) Submitted: October 31, 2014 Decided: November 17, 2014 Before MOTZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharif Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sharif accepting the affirming the Simmons appeals recommendation Commissioner’s the of district the denial court’s magistrate of judge disability benefits and supplemental security income. order and insurance 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 that relief be denied and advised Simmons that failure to timely file specific written 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 also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Simmons has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. 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 the 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.
