Cox v. Social Security Administration

Fourth Circuit

Cox v. Social Security Administration

542 F. App'x 297

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 21, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1972

StatusPublished

This text of 542 F. App'x 297 (Cox v. Social Security Administration) 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

Cox v. Social Security Administration, 542 F. App'x 297 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

TiJon Cox appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Cox’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act and his claim seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cox v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:12-cv-03208-RDB (D.Md. July 30, 2013). We deny Cox’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

TiJon Cox appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction Cox’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act and his claim seeking judicial review of the Social Security Administration’s decision in his case. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Cox v. Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:12-cv-03208-RDB (D.Md. July 30, 2013). We deny Cox’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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)

542 F. App'x 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cox-v-social-security-administration-ca4-2013.