Pamela Denise Idlett v. Nancy A. Berryhill

17-1806Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit09.03.2018

Gesamter Gesetzestext

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1806
PAMELA DENISE IDLETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (4:16-cv-00134-MSD-RJK)
Submitted: January 16, 2018 Decided: March 9, 2018
Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Pamela Denise Idlett, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Denise Idlett appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Acting Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration’s motion to remand for further administrative proceedings
pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012), and denying Idlett’s motion for
summary judgment requesting an award of disability insurance benefits.* We review a
district court’s summary judgment decision de novo, Lee v. Town of Seaboard, 863 F.3d
323, 327 (4th Cir. 2017), and a district court’s choice of remedy in a social security
action for an abuse of discretion, Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 295 (4th Cir. 2013).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
the district court’s order and deny Idlett’s motion to appoint 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
* Although the district court remanded Idlett’s case for further proceedings, the
order is appealable because the district court denied Idlett’s request for an award of
benefits. Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 271 (1998).

-- 2 of 2 --

Setzen Sie Ihre Recherche in ChatGPT oder Claude fort

Verbinden Sie Omnilex, um den Rechtskorpus über Ihren KI-Assistenten zu durchsuchen.