Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Rule v. Massanari, Acting, 01-2056 (2002)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 01-2056 Visitors: 36
Filed: Jan. 30, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2056 STEPHEN GRANVILLE RULE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-184-1) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2056 STEPHEN GRANVILLE RULE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LARRY G. MASSANARI, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-99-184-1) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 30, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen Granville Rule, Appellant Pro Se. Robert William Flynn, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Stephen Granville Rule appeals from the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny Rule’s claim for 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. Rule v. Massanari, No. CA-99-184-1 (N.D.W. Va. filed Aug. 17, 2001; entered Aug. 22, 2001). We deny Rule’s motion to mediate and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate- ly 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