Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Daniel Ross v. Carolyn Colvin, 15-2149 (2016)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 15-2149 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2149 DANIEL HUBERT ROSS; AUDREY DELORIS ROSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration in their individual person and official capacity, Defendant – Appellee, and R. JEFFRIES BROXTON, Field Office Manager in their individual person and official capacity; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, their successors or persons Acting at their behest, Defendants. Appeal from the
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2149 DANIEL HUBERT ROSS; AUDREY DELORIS ROSS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration in their individual person and official capacity, Defendant – Appellee, and R. JEFFRIES BROXTON, Field Office Manager in their individual person and official capacity; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, their successors or persons Acting at their behest, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-02967-DKC) Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016 Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Hubert Ross, Audrey Deloris Ross, Appellants Pro Se. Matthew Paul Phelps, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Daniel Hubert Ross and Audrey Deloris Ross appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing their civil action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant the motions to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. Colvin, No. 8:14-cv-02967-DKC (D. Md. Aug. 27, 2015). 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 3
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