Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Ingle v. Barnhart, Comm, 03-2332 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 03-2332 Visitors: 22
Filed: Sep. 24, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2332 JANICE C. INGLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-7) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2332 JANICE C. INGLE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Carl Horn, III, Magistrate Judge. (CA-03-7) Submitted: April 30, 2004 Decided: September 24, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hugh A. Blackwell, MITCHELL, BLACKWELL & MITCHELL, P.A., Valdese, North Carolina, for Appellant. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., United States Attorney, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Christopher A. Michaels, Assistant Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Janice C. Ingle appeals the magistrate judge’s decision* upholding the decision of the Commissioner to deny Ingle’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Ingle v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-7 (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 19, 2003; entered Aug. 20, 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 * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. - 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