Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Barbara Curry v. Nancy Berryhill, 16-1627 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1627 Visitors: 36
Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1627 BARBARA LINDSEY CURRY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant – Appellee, and J. HEINBOCKEI; ADAM STEIFER; BRIAN M. RICCI; OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW; FIONA LAZIMI, Defendants, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1627 BARBARA LINDSEY CURRY, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant – Appellee, and J. HEINBOCKEI; ADAM STEIFER; BRIAN M. RICCI; OFFICE OF DISABILITY ADJUDICATION AND REVIEW; FIONA LAZIMI, Defendants, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00698-CCE-LPA) Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 16, 2017 Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Barbara Lindsey Curry, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Drum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Barbara Lindsey Curry appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and affirming the Social Security Administration’s decision to deny Curry disability benefits. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Curry’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Curry has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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 3
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