DULA v. SAUL (2021)

Bobby Dula appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of Dula's application for disability insurance benefits, arguing that the district court erred by failing to consider new evidence that he attached to his objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation.^* We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Dula v. Saul, No. 1:19-cv-00740-LCB-JEP, 2020 WL 6816508 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2020). 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

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE.   To the extent that Dula seeks to raise other issues on appeal, he has waived appellate review of those issues by failing to specifically object to the magistrate judge's particularized legal recommendations regarding those issues after being warned of the consequences of failing to do so. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017) (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge's report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

PER CURIAM:

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.