Pamela Melvin v. SSA, No. 16-2248 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2248 PAMELA MELVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; DR. MEYMANDI ASSAD; DR. ELEANOR CRUISE, Defendants - Appellees, and THE WASHINGTON POST; U.S.A. TODAY; THE BOSTON GLOBE; CHICAGO SUN-TIMES; DETROIT FREE PRESS; LOS ANGELES TIMES; THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER; STAR-LEDGER; TAMPA BAY TIMES; THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS; THE ATLANTA JOURNALCONSTITUTION, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (5:14-cv-00170-F) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Decided: April 27, 2017 Pamela Melvin, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina; Kelly Street Brown, Nathan Douglas Childs, Elizabeth Pharr McCullough, YOUNG MOORE & HENDERSON, PA, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Pamela Melvin appeals the district court’s order dismissing her amended complaint and denying her various motions, and a subsequent order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Melvin v. Soc. Sec. Admin. of the United States, No. 5:14-cv-00170-F (E.D.N.C. Aug. 27, 2015; Sept. 26, 2016). We further grant Melvin’s motions to exceed length limitations for her informal brief, to seal certain exhibits, and to extend filing time for her informal reply brief. 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 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.