Filed: Jul. 14, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2510 BARTON CAREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-03583-SAG) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul R.
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2510 BARTON CAREY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-03583-SAG) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul R. S..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2510
BARTON CAREY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:12-cv-03583-SAG)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014
Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul R. Schlitz, Timothy E. Mering, MERING & SCHLITZ LLC,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United
States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barton Carey appeals the magistrate judge’s order
upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Carey’s applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income,
and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment. ∗ We
have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, administrative
record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Carey v. Colvin, No.
1:12-cv-03583-SAG (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2013; Nov. 7, 2013). 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
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
2