Pakuja Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided March 1, 2024·No. 24-1025·Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1025 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1025

PAKUJA CRYSTAL VANG,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:22-cv-00253-MR)

Submitted: February 27, 2024 Decided: March 1, 2024

Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Pakuja Crystal Vang, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Eugene Roach, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1025 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/01/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Pakuja Crystal Vang appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner

of Social Security’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing without prejudice

Vang’s complaint for failure to exhaust her administrative remedies. See 42 U.S.C.

§ 405(g); Smith v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1765, 1772 (2019). We have reviewed the record

and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Vang v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:22-cv-00253-MR (W.D.N.C. Dec. 6, 2023). 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

Pakuja Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security, (4th Cir. 2024).

Pakuja Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security (Pakuja Vang v. Commissioner of Social Security) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Smith v. Berryhill
587 U.S. 471 (Supreme Court, 2019)