Miya Greene v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1681
MIYA GREENE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00059-CCE-JLW)
Submitted: November 22, 2022 Decided: November 28, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Miya Greene, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Jared Littman, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Miya Greene appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Greene’s
application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised
Greene that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could waive
appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. After Greene
did not file such objections within the allotted time, the district court accepted the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. However, on the
same day that the district court issued its order, Green filed a “[m]otion to allow opposing
motion” and a “[r]esponse [t]o [o]ppose [m]otion.” The district court did not rule on those
filings before Greene noted this appeal.*
Whether Greene has forfeited appellate review of the district court’s order turns on
the proper construction and disposition of those documents. We therefore remand to the
district court for the limited purpose of determining whether Greene’s filings are properly
construed as her objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation and a motion for an
extension of time to file those objections and, if so, for the court to consider those filings
* Although the district court issued an order related to these filings after Greene
noted this appeal, it is not apparent that the court had jurisdiction to do so. See, e.g., Doe
v. Public Citizen, 749 F.3d 246, 258 (4th Cir. 2014).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
in the first instance. The record, as supplemented, will then be returned to this court for
further consideration.
REMANDED

-- 3 of 3 --