Samuel Michaels v. Carolyn Colvin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:15-cv-00388-RJC-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000159397]. [16-2242]
Appeal: 16-2242
Doc: 20
Filed: 09/21/2017
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-2242
SAMUEL LITVIN MICHAELS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:15-cv-00388-RJC-DSC)
Submitted: August 29, 2017
Decided: September 21, 2017
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert A. Whitlow, Christian R. Ayers, SELLERS, AYERS, DORTCH & LYONS, P.A.,
Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Gill Beck, Assistant United States Attorney,
Asheville, North Carolina, David Mervis, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-2242
Doc: 20
Filed: 09/21/2017
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Litvin Michaels appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner of Social
Security’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We
have reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the administrative record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Michaels v. Berryhill, No. 3:15-cv-00388-RJC-DSC (W.D.N.C. filed Sept. 26,
2016 and entered Sept. 27, 2016). 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
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?