Moaty v. Colvin, No. 1:2015cv00079 - Document 24 (E.D. Va. 2015)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION re: 17 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Khaled M. Abdel Moaty., 18 Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment by Carolyn Colvin. (See Memorandum Opinion For Details). Signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Anderson on 7/6/15. (nhall)

Download PDF
Moaty v. Colvin Doc. 24 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Alexandria Division KHALED M. ABDEL MOATY Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:15cv0079 (JFA) v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the court on cross-motions for summary judgment. Plaintiff seeks judicial review ofthe final decision ofCarolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner ofthe Social Security Administration ("Commissioner"), denying plaintiffs claim for disability insurance benefits under Title II of the Social Security Act. The Commissioner's final decision is based on a finding by the Administrative Law Judge ("ALJ") and Appeals Council for the Office of Disability Adjudication and Review ("Appeals Council") that claimant was not disabled as defined by the Social Security Act and applicable regulations.1 On April 28,2015, plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment along with an incorporated memorandum insupport. (Docket no. 17). Thereafter, defendant submitted a motion for summary judgment (Docket no. 18), a memorandum in support (Docket no. 19), and a memorandum in opposition (Docket no. 20). The two briefs submitted on behalfof the The Administrative Record ("AR") in this case has been filed under seal, pursuant to Local Civil Rules 5and 7(C). (Docket no. 14). In accordance with these rules, this opinion excludes any personal identifiers such as plaintiffs social security number and date ofbirth (except for the year ofbirth), and the discussion ofplaintiffsmedical information is limited tothe extent necessary to analyze the case. Dockets.Justia.com

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.