Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Bryant v. Barnhart, 04-2326 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-2326 Visitors: 12
Filed: Apr. 01, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2326 DONALD G. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2135-2) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit J
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2326 DONALD G. BRYANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-03-2135-2) Submitted: March 16, 2005 Decided: April 1, 2005 Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald G. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Patricia McEvoy Smith, Assistant Regional Counsel, Nicole Appalucci Schmid, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Donald G. Bryant appeals the district court’s order adopting the proposed findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge and affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration that Bryant is not entitled to 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 Bryant v. Barnhart, No. CA-03- 2135-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 8, 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