Elawyers Elawyers

Vanzant v. Commissioner of Social Security, 08-2011 (2009)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 08-2011 Visitors: 12
Filed: May 06, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2011 ROBIN G. VANZANT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00069-pms) Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe, Nort
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-2011 ROBIN G. VANZANT, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Pamela Meade Sargent, Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00069-pms) Submitted: April 20, 2009 Decided: May 6, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Julia C. Dudley, Acting United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, Eric P. Kressman, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Supervising Attorney, Tara A. Czekaj, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robin G. Vanzant appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion for summary judgment, granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny her application for Disability Insurance Benefits under the Social Security Act. * We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Vanzant v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 2:07-cv-00069-pms (W.D. Va. Aug. 14, 2008). 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 * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties’ consent under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 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