Barton Carey v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-03583-SAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999394685].. [13-2510]

Download PDF
Appeal: 13-2510 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/14/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2510 BARTON CAREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-03583-SAG) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul R. Schlitz, Timothy E. Mering, MERING & SCHLITZ LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 13-2510 Doc: 23 Filed: 07/14/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Barton Carey appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Carey’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income, and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. ∗ have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, We administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, reasons stated by the district court. we affirm for Carey v. Colvin, No. 1:12-cv-03583-SAG (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2013; Nov. 7, 2013). dispense with oral argument because the the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED ∗ The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?