Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Williams v. Barnhart, 05-2367 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-2367 Visitors: 6
Filed: May 09, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2367 LATASHA R. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee, and OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-05-378-0-MBS) Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Jud
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2367 LATASHA R. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee, and OFFICE OF HEARINGS & APPEALS, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge. (CA-05-378-0-MBS) Submitted: April 28, 2006 Decided: May 9, 2006 Before WILLIAMS and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Latasha R. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Bonnie Evelyn Sims, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: Latasha R. Williams appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing her action seeking disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Barnhart, No. CA-05-378-0-MBS (D.S.C. filed Nov. 22, 2005; entered Nov. 23, 2005). 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 - 3 -
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