Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sherrie Terry v. Nancy Berryhill, 16-1332 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1332 Visitors: 12
Filed: Feb. 10, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1332 SHERRIE J. TERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:14-cv-04641-MGL) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: February 10, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1332 SHERRIE J. TERRY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (8:14-cv-04641-MGL) Submitted: January 17, 2017 Decided: February 10, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Leeds Barroll, J. LEEDS BARROLL LAW OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina; Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., FINKEL LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory Attorney, Jillian Quick, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sherrie J. Terry appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Terry v. Colvin, No. 8:14-cv- 04641-MGL (D.S.C. Feb. 3, 2016). 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