Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Barfield v. Barnhart, Comm, 04-1048 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1048 Visitors: 54
Filed: Aug. 10, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1048 BEVERLY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-208-5-BO) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1048 BEVERLY BARFIELD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-03-208-5-BO) Submitted: July 26, 2004 Decided: August 10, 2004 Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sabrina Gicola, H. RUSSELL VICK & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C., Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, David J. Cortes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Beverly Barfield appeals the district court’s order dismissing her action seeking judicial review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny Barfield’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record, the district court’s opinion, and the decision of the administrative law judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Barfield v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-208-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2003). 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