Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Michele Parks v. Carolyn Colvin, 14-1836 (2014)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 14-1836 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 22, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1836 MICHELE P. PARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00288-D) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam op
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1836 MICHELE P. PARKS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cv-00288-D) Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 22, 2014 Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michele P. Parks, Appellant Pro Se. David Nathaniel Mervis, Thomas McLean Nanni, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michele P. Parks appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and granting Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings in Parks’ civil action for review of the Social Security Administration’s denial of disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Parks v. Colvin, No. 5:13–cv–00288–D (E.D.N.C. June 19, 2014). 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 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