Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Carlyle v. SSA, 04-2217 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2217 Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 16, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2217 GLORIA A. CARLYLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Disability Determination Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2217 GLORIA A. CARLYLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, Disability Determination Services, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-03-629-3) Submitted: January 14, 2005 Decided: February 16, 2005 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gloria A. Carlyle, Appellant Pro Se. Tara Louise Casey, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; Jane D. Hickey, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Gloria A. Carlyle appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants in her action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carlyle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CA-03- 629-3 (E.D. Va. July 23, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED - 2 -
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer