Filed: Mar. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2197 NELLIE VICTORIA LISLE, a/k/a Victoria Royal, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00610-GEC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2197 NELLIE VICTORIA LISLE, a/k/a Victoria Royal, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00610-GEC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2197 NELLIE VICTORIA LISLE, a/k/a Victoria Royal, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00610-GEC) Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nellie Victoria Lisle, Appellant Pro Se. Pongthawee Chulirashaneekorn, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nellie Victoria Lisle appeals the district court’s order affirming as supported by substantial evidence the Commissioner of Social Security’s adoption of the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lisle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 7:12-cv-00610-GEC (W.D. Va. Aug. 16, 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