Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Susan Breed v. Carolyn Colvin, 14-1709 (2015)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1709 Visitors: 27
Filed: Feb. 06, 2015
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1709 SUSAN E. BREED, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00583-NCT-JLW) Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 6, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Ju
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1709 SUSAN E. BREED, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00583-NCT-JLW) Submitted: January 29, 2015 Decided: February 6, 2015 Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David J. Cortes, ROBERTI, WITTENBERG, LAUFFER, WICKER & CINSKI, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, John J. Engel, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Susan E. Breed appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering judgment for the Commissioner in this action seeking 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. Breed v. Colvin, No. 1:10-cv-00583-NCT-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 14, 2014). 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