Pamela Melvin v. SSA et al

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for stay pending appeal [998558753-2]; denying Motion to reconsider [998553875-2], denying Motion to reconsider [998553874-2] Originating case number: 5:09-cv-00235-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998650326]. Mailed to: Cassia W. Parson, Pamela Melvin. [10-2409]

Appeal: 10-2409

Document: 25

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2409

PAMELA MELVIN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at New Bern.
Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00235-FL)

Submitted:

July 29, 2011

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

WYNN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

August 9, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Marian Ashley
Harder, Cassia W. Parson, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-2409

Document: 25

Date Filed: 08/09/2011

Page: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Pamela
adopting

the

Melvin

appeals

recommendation

dismissing her complaint.
no reversible error.
stated

by

the

the

of

district

the

court’s

magistrate

judge

order
and

We have reviewed the record and find

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

district

court.

Melvin

5:09-cv-00235-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 20, 2010). *

v.

SSA,

No.

We deny Melvin’s

motion to reconsider our denial of her motions to unseal and
compel, as well as her motion for stay.

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

*

Contrary to Melvin’s assertion on appeal, the district
court permitted her Privacy Act claims to proceed, despite the
district court’s dismissal of Claims One through Three of
Melvin’s complaint.

2