Carolyn Harrison v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 14-1976 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1976 CAROLYN J. HARRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (6:13-cv-01453-MGL) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn J. Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Carolyn upholding the Harrison Commissioner’s for disability benefits. to a magistrate (2012). appeals judge the denial district of court’s Harrison’s order application The district court referred this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) The magistrate judge recommended affirming the agency’s denial of benefits and advised Harrison that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation would waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Harrison failed to object to the magistrate judge’s 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. been warned of the consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 155 (1985). Harrison objections has waived after appellate receiving review proper by notice. failing 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.