Taylor v. Social Security

Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. Social Security

528 F. App'x 375

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedJune 17, 2013

DocketNo. 13-1399

StatusPublished

This text of 528 F. App'x 375 (Taylor v. Social Security) 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

Taylor v. Social Security, 528 F. App'x 375 (4th Cir. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Richard Taylor appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Taylor has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Richard Taylor appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting Defendant’s motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Taylor’s informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s disposition, Taylor has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. 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)

528 F. App'x 375, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-social-security-ca4-2013.