Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Phillips v. Commissioner, Soc, 99-1466 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1466 Visitors: 12
Filed: Oct. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1466 PHYLLIS VADEN MATHERLY PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-21-L) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before ERVIN* and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1466 PHYLLIS VADEN MATHERLY PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, District Judge. (CA-98-21-L) Submitted: August 31, 1999 Decided: October 19, 1999 Before ERVIN* and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Phyllis Vaden Matherly Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Cynthia Taleese Brown, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. * Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant Phyllis Phillips appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and affirm- ing the denial of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen- dation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Phillips v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-98-21-L (W.D. Va., Feb. 16, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer