Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Vaughn v. Astrue, 10-1542 (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1542 Visitors: 28
Filed: Feb. 15, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1542 AMOS VAUGHN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. David W. Daniel, Magistrate Judge. (2:09-cv-00028-DAN) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amos Va
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1542 AMOS VAUGHN, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. David W. Daniel, Magistrate Judge. (2:09-cv-00028-DAN) Submitted: January 28, 2011 Decided: February 15, 2011 Before MOTZ, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amos Vaughn, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina; Mary Ellen Russell, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Amos Vaughn appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment in this action challenging the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Vaughn v. Astrue, No. 2:09-cv-00028-DAN (E.D.N.C. May 4, 2010). We deny the motion to appoint counsel and 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