Opinion
No. 18-2006
09-10-2019
BRANDY BENTLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee.
Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina; Timothy A. Clardy, MCCRAVY NEWLON AND STURKIE LAW FIRM, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Melissa K. Curry, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (2:17-cv-00948-RBH-MGB) Before MOTZ, RICHARDSON, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina; Timothy A. Clardy, MCCRAVY NEWLON AND STURKIE LAW FIRM, Greenwood, South Carolina, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Melissa K. Curry, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Brandy Bentley appeals the district court's text order denying her Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a) motion to amend or clarify the court's prior order granting the parties' joint motion to remand her case to the Social Security Administration. We have reviewed the record and find the court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bentley's Rule 60(a) motion. See Sartin v. McNair Law Firm PA, 756 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2014) (providing standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's text order. See Bentley v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:17-cv-00948-RBH-MGB (D.S.C. July 19, 2018). 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