Leslie McCoy v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 16-1078 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1078 LESLIE MCCOY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:14-cv-02918-JMC) Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 12, 2016 Before KING, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leslie McCoy, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Leslie McCoy appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate Commissioner’s benefits. judge’s denial The magistrate of timely judge’s recommendation McCoy’s filing to application of recommendation specific is uphold for disability objections necessary the 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). However, because McCoy, who is proceeding pro se, was not warned of the consequences of filing non-specific objections, we decline to enforce the waiver. After reviewing the record, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s finding that McCoy’s use of crutches is not medically necessary and thus does not warrant further limitation of her residual functional capacity. See Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[A] reviewing court is required to uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s evidence.”). factual findings are supported by substantial We decline to consider the new claims and evidence McCoy seeks to present on appeal because they fail to meet the requirements set forth in 42 2 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012). Accordingly, dispense we with contentions are affirm oral the district argument adequately court’s because presented in the the judgment. facts We and legal 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.
