Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security, 09-2169 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-2169 Visitors: 11
Filed: Sep. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2169 GARY W. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant -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. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00041-jpj-pms) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 15, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-2169 GARY W. JACKSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant -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. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:08-cv-00041-jpj-pms) Submitted: August 31, 2010 Decided: September 15, 2010 Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph E. Wolfe, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Brian O’Donnell, Supervisory Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, United States Attorney, Charles J. Kawas, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Gary W. Jackson appeals the district court’s order granting the Government’s motion for summary judgment and affirming the decision of the Commissioner. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Jackson v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 2:08-cv-00041-jpj-pms (W.D. Va. Aug. 17, 2009). 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