Pamela Sue Bond v. SSA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to clarify [1000037142-2] Originating case number: 4:13-cv-00046-JLK-JCH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000127903]. Mailed to: Bond. [17-1090]

Download PDF
Appeal: 17-1090 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1090 PAMELA SUE BOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Joel Christopher Hoppe, Magistrate Judge. (4:13-cv-00046-JLK-JCH) Submitted: July 27, 2017 Decided: July 31, 2017 Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pamela Sue Bond, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 17-1090 Doc: 27 Filed: 07/31/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Pamela Sue Bond appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying Bond’s self-styled “Motion to Initiate Discovery by the Court.” On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because neither Bond’s informal brief nor the supplement thereto challenges the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition on this postjudgment motion, Bond has forfeited appellate review of the order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004). Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. We deny Bond’s motion for clarification of the Social Security Administration’s theory of defense. 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?