Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Wilkes v. Barnhart, Comm, 02-2214 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2214 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 20, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2214 CHARLES H. WILKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-142-7-BR-1) Submitted: May 30, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2214 CHARLES H. WILKES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-142-7-BR-1) Submitted: May 30, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William L. Davis, II, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Charles H. Wilkes appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner’s decision denying Wilkes’ application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the opinion of the district court and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Wilkes v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-142-7-BR-1 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 3, 2002). 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