Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Drue A. Martin v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants, 87-2158 (1988)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 87-2158 Visitors: 3
Filed: Aug. 04, 1988
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 854 F.2d 1317 Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit. Drue A. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, Defendants- Appellees. No. 87-2158. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. Submitted May
More

854 F.2d 1317
Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Drue A. MARTIN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Otis R. BOWEN, Secretary, Department of Health and Human
Services, Defendants- Appellees.

No. 87-2158.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted May 27, 1988.
Decided Aug. 4, 1988.

Drue A. Martin, appellant pro se.

J. Phillip Krajewski, Office of United States Attorney, Deborah Fitzgerald United States Department of Health and Human Services, for appellees.

Before DONALD RUSSELL and SPROUSE, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 405(g), Drue A. Martin seeks review of the final decision of the Secretary of Health and Human Services denying his entitlement to continued payment of Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits. Martin appeals the district court's entry of summary judgment in favor of the Secretary. Our review of the record and the district court's opinion discloses that his appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Martin v. Bowen, C/A No. 87-0140 (E.D.Va. Aug. 14, 1987). 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.

2

AFFIRMED.

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