Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Robinson v. Apfel, Commissioner, 99-2197 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2197 Visitors: 13
Filed: Mar. 07, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2197 VENSON J. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-1154-5-18JI) Submitted: February 15, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2197 VENSON J. ROBINSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-97-1154-5-18JI) Submitted: February 15, 2000 Decided: March 7, 2000 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Michele M. Kelley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Venson J. Robinson appeals the district court’s order uphold- ing the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding that Robinson is not disabled and not entitled to disability in- surance benefits or supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recom- mendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Apfel, No. CA-97-1154-5-18JI (D.S.C. June 21, 1999). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten- tions 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