Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Betty Woodcock v. Carolyn Colvin, 13-2329 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 13-2329 Visitors: 44
Filed: Jul. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2329 BETTY WOODCOCK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00474-AWA-TEM) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. D
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2329 BETTY WOODCOCK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00474-AWA-TEM) Submitted: June 30, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E. BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory Attorney, Pong Chulirashaneekorn, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, Acting United States Attorney, Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Betty Woodcock appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Woodcock v. Colvin, No. 2:12-cv-00474-AWA-TEM (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2013). 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
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