Sheryl Starliper v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 15-1216 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1216 SHERYL STARLIPER, for Eric Glen Starliper, Deceased, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Administration, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-03646-CCB) Submitted: September 30, 2015 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. FLOYD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and October 13, 2015 HAMILTON, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Christine P. Benagh, COLLIER-BENAGH LAW, P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Jay C. Hinsley, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sheryl accepting the Starliper the appeals magistrate Commissioner’s the judge’s denial of disability insurance benefits. * district court’s recommendation her husband’s and order upholding application for Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. 2015). See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, while we grant Starliper’s motion to file a supplemental appendix, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Starliper v. Colvin, No. 1:13-cv-03646-CCB (D. Md. Jan. 28, 2015). 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 * Sheryl Starliper was substituted as the party in interest after the claimant’s death. 2

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.