Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lamb v. Astrue, 07-2150 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-2150 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 03, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2150 ROBERT EMERSON LAMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00021-RBS) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2150 ROBERT EMERSON LAMB, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:07-cv-00021-RBS) Submitted: February 28, 2008 Decided: March 3, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Emerson Lamb, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Emerson Lamb appeals the district court’s order dismissing his civil complaint for lack of jurisdiction because he failed to exhaust the required administrative remedies. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.* Lamb v. Astrue, No. 4:07-cv-00021-RBS (E.D. Va. Oct. 5, 2007). 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 * To the extent we may properly consider Lamb’s constitutional challenge to the statutory and regulatory provisions setting a limit on insured status for disability insurance claimants, we find the claim meritless. - 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