Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Assa'ad-Faltas v. Commissioner of Social Security, 09-2363 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2363 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jun. 23, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2363 MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00080-TLW) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirme
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2363 MARIE THERESE ASSA’AD-FALTAS, MD, MPH, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, in his official capacity, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (3:06-cv-00080-TLW) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 23, 2010 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, Thomas Stephen Inman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marie Therese Assa’ad-Faltas, M.D., M.P.H., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s decision denying her disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, as well as its order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Assa’ad-Faltas’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny her motion for extension of time to file a supplemental pro se brief and affirm the district court’s orders. See Assa’ad-Faltas v. Commissioner of Soc. Sec., No. 3:06-cv-00080-TLW (D.S.C. Mar. 27, 2007; filed Oct. 19, 2009, entered Oct. 20, 2009). 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 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