Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bellefeuille v. Apfel, Commissioner, 00-1653 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1653 Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 09, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1653 G. JOSEPH BELLEFEUILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF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 Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-3743-9-17BD) Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1653 G. JOSEPH BELLEFEUILLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF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 Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis- trict Judge. (CA-98-3743-9-17BD) Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Layne Birdsong, RICHARDSON & BIRDSONG, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assis- tant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Michele M. Kelley, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Joseph Bellefeuille appeals the district court’s order af- firming the Commissioner’s decision denying Bellefeuille’s appli- cation for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Bellefeuille v. Apfel, No. CA-98-3743-9- 17BD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2000). 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