Angela Dawn Nelson v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security

25-2073Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 1, 2026

Full text

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-2073
ANGELA DAWN NELSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Huntington. Robert C. Chambers, District Judge. (3:24-cv-00540)
Submitted: May 28, 2026 Decided: June 1, 2026
Before WYNN, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Angela Dawn Nelson, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Angela Dawn Nelson appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner of Social
Security’s decision denying Nelson disability insurance benefits. 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 the Commissioner of Social Security’s benefits
decision be affirmed and advised Nelson 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. Martin v. Duffy, 858
F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see
also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Nelson has forfeited appellate review
by failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving
proper notice.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude

Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.