Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Stover v. Apfel, Commissioner, 99-2392 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 99-2392 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 16, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2392 DANNY J. STOVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Mary S. Feinberg, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-946-5) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-2392 DANNY J. STOVER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Beckley. Mary S. Feinberg, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-946-5) Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: May 16, 2000 Before MURNAGHAN, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Don M. Stacy, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellant. John M. Sacchetti, Regional Chief Counsel, Lori R. Karimoto, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY AD- MINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephen M. Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Danny J. Stover appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying Stover’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting the Commis- sioner’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits.* We have reviewed the briefs and the administrative record, and find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. (J.A. at 14-40). 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 * The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994). 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