UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2084
JUANITA HALL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (CA-04-47-4)
Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: June 5, 2006
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juanita Hall, Appellant Pro Se. Anita K. Henry, Assistant United
States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Juanita Hall appeals* the district court’s order granting
summary judgment to Defendant in Hall’s 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000)
suit. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000). The magistrate judge
issued a report and recommendation in which he recommended granting
summary judgment to Defendants. The district court adopted the
report and recommendation, finding that Hall failed to file
objections to the magistrate judge’s report.
The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation is necessary to preserve
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the
parties have been warned that failure to object will waive
appellate review. See Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th
Cir. 1985); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). On
appeal, Hall does not challenge the district court’s conclusion
that she failed to object to the magistrate judge’s report. See
4th Cir. R. 34(b) (failure to raise claim in informal brief waives
consideration of that claim). Accordingly, we conclude that Hall
has waived appellate review of the substance of the magistrate
judge’s report.
*
We have construed Hall’s informal appellate brief as a notice
of appeal. See Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244 (1992).
- 2 -
Thus we affirm the order of the district court. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -