Pamela Idlett v. Nancy Berryhill, No. 17-1806 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-1806 PAMELA DENISE IDLETT, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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

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.