Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Richard Taylor v. Social Security, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Richard Taylor appealed a district court's order granting the Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment in Taylor's suit challenging the denial of Social Security benefits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. In its unpublished opinion, the appellate court confined its review to the issues raised in Taylor's informal brief, as required by court rules. Because Taylor's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, he forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2013-06-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-1399

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Richard Taylor appealed a district court's order granting the Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment in Taylor's suit challenging the denial of Social Security benefits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. In its unpublished opinion, the appellate court confined its review to the issues raised in Taylor's informal brief, as required by court rules. Because Taylor's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, he forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views2 pages

    Richard Taylor v. Social Security, 4th Cir. (2013)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Richard Taylor appealed a district court's order granting the Social Security Administration's motion for summary judgment in Taylor's suit challenging the denial of Social Security benefits. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision. In its unpublished opinion, the appellate court confined its review to the issues raised in Taylor's informal brief, as required by court rules. Because Taylor's brief did not challenge the basis for the district court's ruling, he forfeited appellate review. The appellate court therefore affirmed the district court's judgment without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-1399

    RICHARD TAYLOR,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
    Judge. (4:12-cv-00039-MSD-LRL)

    Submitted:

    June 13, 2013

    Decided:

    June 17, 2013

    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Richard Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.


    Craig Wittman, Assistant
    United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Richard

    Taylor

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and granting


    Defendants

    motion

    appeal,

    confine

    we

    Appellants brief.

    to

    dismiss

    our

    or

    review

    to

    for
    the

    summary
    issues

    See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

    judgment.
    raised

    in

    On
    the

    Because Taylors

    informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district
    courts disposition, Taylor has forfeited appellate review of
    the courts order.
    judgment.
    legal
    before

    Accordingly, we affirm the district courts

    We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

    contentions
    this

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in
    aid

    the
    the

    materials
    decisional

    process.
    AFFIRMED

    You might also like