Cases

Doris Daniels appeals a district court order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of her applications for social security disability insurance benefits and for supplemental security income benefits. The parties have waived oral argument and this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a). Daniels filed an application for social security disability insurance benefits and an application for supplementa

BARRON, Circuit Judge. The Social Security Administration (“SSA”) terminated the disability benefits that Daniel Justiniano and Francisco Men-éndez—the plaintiffs-appellants—had been receiving. 1 The SSA did so based on a concern that the medical evidence that supported Justiniano’s and Menéndez’s ap

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 supplement

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Julian Harman appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering judgment for the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed th

Reversed and remanded with instructions by published opinion. Judge DUNCAN wrote the opinion, in which Judge KING and Judge KEENAN joined. DUNCAN, Circuit Judge: Plaintiff-Appellant Constance L. Patterson (“Patterson”) appeals from a district-court order affirming the Social Security Administration’s (“SSA”) decision to deny her application for disability

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Annmarie Serem appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whet

MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge The plaintiffs, Tina Heard, Pearline Snow, and Carolyn Graham, filed this putative class action against the defendants — the United States Social Security Administration (“SSA”), the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), and the District of Columbia (“District”)— challengi

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Christopher McCummings appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of McCummings’ application for supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

517 F.3d 70 (2008) Peter J. MALONEY, Marilyn G. Maloney, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Anne Jacobsky, J. Glasser, Ms. Crumble, Unknown Employees of the Social Security Administration, Som Ramrup, Janet Mullarkey, Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Defendant. Docket No. 06-3827-CV. United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. Argue

MEMORANDUM ** Daniel Brink (“Brink”) appeals the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties are familiar with the facts, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse. We review the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner’s”) denial of benefits de novo. <

MEMORANDUM ** Daniel Brink (“Brink”) appeals the denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income benefits. The parties are familiar with the facts, which we repeat here only to the extent necessary to explain our decision. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverse. We review the Commissioner of Social Security’s (“the Commissioner’s”) denial of benefits de novo. <

ORDER RICHARD MARK GERGEL, District Judge. Plaintiff filed this action seeking judicial review of a final decision of Defendant Commissioner of Social Security denying Plaintiffs application for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”). In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 73.02, D.S.C., this matter was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Joseph R. McCrorey for pretrial handling.

OPINION AND ORDER HON. R. STEVEN WHALEN, U.S. Magistrate Judge Plaintiff Daniel Richard Shipman brings this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g), challenging a final decision of Defendant Commissioner denying his application for Disability Insurance Benefits (“DIB”) under the Social Security Act. Both parties have filed summary judgment motions. For the reasons set for

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND PURSUANT TO SENTENCE FOUR (PE 17) AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DE 20) Anthony P. Patti, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff, Kristen Jo Gross, Jr., brings this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) for review of a final decision of *82

OPINION AND ORDER GABRIEL W. GORENSTEIN, United States Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff Kenneth Owen Browne brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) to obtain judicial review of the final decision of the Commissioner of.'Social Security (“Commissioner”) denying his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. Browne moved for judgment on

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DANIELLE DIANA BROOKS, Plaintiff, v. Civil Action No. 17-02680 (CKK) ANDREW SAUL, 1 Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, Danielle Diana Brooks, proceeding pro se, fi

DAVID R. THOMPSON, Circuit Judge: Daniel Regennitter (“Regennitter”) appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s (the “Commissioner’s”) denial of his claims for Disability Insurance Benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 401 et seq., and Supplemental Security Income under Title XVI of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1381 et seq. In de

United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 20-1377 MARIE V. PÁGAN-LISBOA; DANIEL JUSTINIANO-RAMÍREZ, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION; ANDREW M. SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendants, Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

PER CURIAM. Andrew Bess (Bess) appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of his complaint seeking review of the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). We affirm. After an administrative law judge (AL J) concluded Bess was not entitled

USCA11 Case: 19-14633 Date Filed: 11/03/2021 Page: 1 of 24 [PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14633 ____________________ MARIA TERESA PUPO, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS