Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Pruitt v. Apfel, Commissioner, 99-1610 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1610 Visitors: 13
Filed: Oct. 26, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1610 DEBORAH PRUITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-98-323) Submitted: October 14, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Patri
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1610 DEBORAH PRUITT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District Judge. (CA-98-323) Submitted: October 14, 1999 Decided: October 26, 1999 Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean Patrick Kavanagh, JENKINS, BLOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Kenneth DiVito, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Joan E. Evans, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Deborah Pruitt appeals the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commis- sioner's denial of her disability insurance benefits. We have re- viewed the briefs and the administrative record, and find that substantial evidence supports the Administrative Law Judge's deci- sion denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pruitt v. Apfel, Commissioner, No. CA-98-323 (E.D. Va. Mar. 23, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials 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