Samuel Michaels v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2242 Doc: 20 Filed: 09/21/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2242 SAMUEL LITVIN MICHAELS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?