Filed: May 10, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2334 ARTHUR E. BERKELEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-6-3-MU) Submitted: April 24, 2001 Decided: May 10, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpubli
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2334 ARTHUR E. BERKELEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-6-3-MU) Submitted: April 24, 2001 Decided: May 10, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublis..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2334 ARTHUR E. BERKELEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge. (CA-00-6-3-MU) Submitted: April 24, 2001 Decided: May 10, 2001 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Lynn Bishop, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Joseph L. Brinkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Arthur E. Berkeley appeals the district court's order up- holding the administrative law judge’s denial of Social Security disability benefits. We have reviewed the record 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. Berkeley v. Apfel, No. CA-00-6-3- MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2000). We dispense with oral argument be- cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2