Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Horton v. Barnhart, Comm, 04-2068 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2068 Visitors: 16
Filed: Feb. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2068 CARROLL HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-03-669-0-17BD) Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affir
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2068 CARROLL HORTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-03-669-0-17BD) Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005 Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles L. Martin, Decatur, Georgia, Paul T. McChesney, Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Laura Ridgell- Boltz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Carroll N. Horton (“Horton”) appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that he was no longer disabled, as defined within Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433 (West 2003 & Supp. 2004). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Horton v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-669-0-17BD (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2004). 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