Case Name: Pamela Denise IDLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-09
Citations: 714 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 17-1806
Parties: Pamela Denise IDLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
Pamela Denise IDLETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1806
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 16, 2018
Decided: March 9, 2018
Pamela Denise Idlett, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 ap-pealable because the district court denied Id-lett's request for an award of benefits. Forney v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 266, 271, 118 S.Ct. 1984, 141 L.Ed.2d 269 (1998).