Erica Lashette Ellis v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1235
ERICA LASHETTE ELLIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Roderick Charles Young, District Judge. (2:20-cv-00514-RCY-LRL)
Submitted: June 28, 2022 Decided: June 30, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Erica Lashette Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Garry Daniel Hartlieb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Erica Lashette Ellis appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Ellis’ 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 upholding the
ALJ’s denial of benefits and advised Ellis 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). Ellis has waived appellate review by
failing to file objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation after receiving proper
notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court.
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 --