Lisle v. Social Security Administration

Fourth Circuit

Lisle v. Social Security Administration

559 F. App'x 200

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 4, 2014

DocketNo. 13-2197

StatusPublished

This text of 559 F. App'x 200 (Lisle 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

Lisle v. Social Security Administration, 559 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nellie Victoria Lisle appeals the district court’s order affirming as supported by substantial evidence the Commissioner of Social Security’s adoption of the Administrative Law Judge’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. Lisle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 7:12-cv-00610-GEC, 2013 WL 4431317 (W.D.Va. Aug. 16, 2013). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Nellie Victoria Lisle appeals the district court’s order affirming as supported by substantial evidence the Commissioner of Social Security’s adoption of the Administrative Law Judge’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. Lisle v. Soc. Sec. Admin., 7:12-cv-00610-GEC, 2013 WL 4431317 (W.D.Va. Aug. 16, 2013). 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)

559 F. App'x 200, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisle-v-social-security-administration-ca4-2014.