Filed: May 05, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1977 ALICE M. DEANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00110-gec) Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: May 5, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alice M. Dean
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1977 ALICE M. DEANE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (5:09-cv-00110-gec) Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: May 5, 2011 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alice M. Deane..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1977
ALICE M. DEANE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:09-cv-00110-gec)
Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: May 5, 2011
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alice M. Deane, Appellant Pro Se. Shawn C. Carver, Assistant
Regional Counsel, Allyson Sinclair Jozwik, Maija Pelly, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alice M. Deane appeals the district court’s order
granting the Commissioner of Social Security’s summary judgment
motion in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s
decision denying her disability insurance and supplemental
security income benefits under the Social Security Act. On
appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the
Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Deane’s
informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
court’s disposition, Deane 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
*
To the extent Deane seeks to submit evidence she did not
present in the administrative proceeding, we decline to consider
it. See Smith v. Chater,
99 F.3d 635, 638 n.5 (4th Cir. 1996).
2