Filed: Aug. 29, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1523 DIANE LOGAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Magistrate Judge. (7:10-cv-00212-mfu) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diane Logan, Appellant Pro Se.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1523 DIANE LOGAN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Magistrate Judge. (7:10-cv-00212-mfu) Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Diane Logan, Appellant Pro Se. ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1523
DIANE LOGAN,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski,
Magistrate Judge. (7:10-cv-00212-mfu)
Submitted: August 25, 2011 Decided: August 29, 2011
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Diane Logan, Appellant Pro Se. Quinn E.N. Doggett, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Diane Logan appeals the magistrate judge’s order *
granting summary judgment for the Commissioner of Social
Security in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s
denial of social security benefits. On appeal, we confine our
review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Logan’s informal brief does not
challenge the basis for the magistrate judge’s disposition,
Logan has forfeited appellate review of the magistrate judge’s
order. Accordingly, we affirm. 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
*
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate
judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2