Sharon Adams v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:13-cv-00019-FDW-DSC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999634573].. [14-1555]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-1555 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1555 SHARON RADFORD ADAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Administration, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00019-FDW-DSC) Submitted: June 30, 2015 Decided: August 5, 2015 Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward Wicklund, Paul B. Eaglin, OLINSKY LAW GROUP, Syracuse, New York, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Jeanne D. Semivan, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-1555 Doc: 36 Filed: 08/05/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Sharon Radford Adams appeals the district court’s orders denying her initial petition to proceed in forma pauperis and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm. record and find no reversible Adams v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-00019-FDW- DSC (W.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2013 & May 1, 2014). oral argument adequately because presented in error. the the facts and materials legal before We dispense with contentions this court are and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 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?