Eric Clay v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 15-1285 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1285 ERIC L. CLAY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01119-LCB-JEP) Submitted: July 30, 2015 Decided: August 6, 2015 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric L. Clay, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa G. Smoller, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric L. Clay appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of Commissioner’s motion upholding the decision the application for magistrate for judgment of disability the judge, on Commissioner insurance the pleadings, the granting and to benefits. deny The Clay’s 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 Clay that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Wright v. Collins, see 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Cir. 1985); also Clay has waived appellate review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we district court. 2 affirm the judgment of the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3