Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Allen v. Apfel, 99-1968 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-1968 Visitors: 3
Filed: Mar. 01, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1968 EDDIE L. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Secu- rity Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-1015-3-22BC) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1968 EDDIE L. ALLEN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Secu- rity Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-98-1015-3-22BC) Submitted: January 25, 2000 Decided: March 1, 2000 Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Daniel Mayes, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Chief Counsel, Region VIII, Yvette G. Keesee, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Eddie Allen appeals the district court’s order upholding the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying Allen’s application for disability insurance benefits and supple- mental security income. We have reviewed the record, the briefs, and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Apfel, No. CA-98-1015-3-22BC (D.S.C. May 11, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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