Adams v. Colvin

Fourth Circuit

Adams v. Colvin

611 F. App'x 150

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 5, 2015

DocketNo. 14-1555

StatusPublished

This text of 611 F. App'x 150 (Adams v. Colvin) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Colvin, 611 F. App'x 150 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Radford Adams appeals the district court’s orders denying her initial petition to proceed in forma pauperis and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits [151]*151and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Adams v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-00019-FDW-DSC, 2014 WL 1713775 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2013 & May 1, 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Sharon Radford Adams appeals the district court’s orders denying her initial petition to proceed in forma pauperis and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits [151]*151and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. Adams v. Colvin, No. 2:13-cv-00019-FDW-DSC, 2014 WL 1713775 (W.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2013 & May 1, 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

611 F. App'x 150, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-colvin-ca4-2015.