Ronnie Shelton v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00027-MFU-JCH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000136863]. Mailed to: R Shelton. [16-2440]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2440 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2440 RONNIE T. SHELTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner Of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00027-MFU-JCH) Submitted: July 25, 2017 Decided: August 15, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronnie T. Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2440 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/15/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Ronnie T. Shelton filed a complaint in the district court seeking review of the Appeals Council’s decision dismissing a subsequent application for disability insurance benefits on res judicata grounds. Shelton now appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shelton v. Berryhill, No. 5:15-cv-00027-MFU-JCH (W.D. Va. Sept. 13, 2016 & Nov. 23, 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?