Shellman v. Social Security Administration

Fourth Circuit

Shellman v. Social Security Administration

614 F. App'x 672

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 2015

DocketNo. 15-1326

StatusPublished

This text of 614 F. App'x 672 (Shellman 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

Shellman v. Social Security Administration, 614 F. App'x 672 (4th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Lisa Evette Shellman appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely this action challenging the Commissioner’s decision denying Shellman’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shellman v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 2:14-cv-00382-MSD-LRL, [673]*6732015 WL 731631 (E.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2015). 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Lisa Evette Shellman appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely this action challenging the Commissioner’s decision denying Shellman’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Shellman v. Social Sec. Admin., No. 2:14-cv-00382-MSD-LRL, [673]*6732015 WL 731631 (E.D.Va. Feb. 18, 2015). 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)

614 F. App'x 672, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shellman-v-social-security-administration-ca4-2015.