Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Dixon v. Astrue, 07-2195 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-2195 Visitors: 25
Filed: Aug. 06, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2195 JERRY DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-00921-NCT-PTS) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: August 6, 2008 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josep
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2195 JERRY DIXON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:04-cv-00921-NCT-PTS) Submitted: June 19, 2008 Decided: August 6, 2008 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Christopher A. Michaels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerry Dixon appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying his motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Dixon v. Astrue, No. 1:04-cv-00921-NCT-PTS (M.D.N.C. Oct. 3, 2007). 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