Filed: Sep. 29, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2550 HOLMES K. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-1164) Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2550 HOLMES K. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-1164) Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 96-2550 HOLMES K. DUNN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (CA-95-1164) Submitted: February 28, 1997 Decided: September 29, 1997 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Holmes K. Dunn, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Richard Leonard, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Holmes K. Dunn appeals from the district court's order denying his request for waiver of his obligation to repay an overpayment of Social Security benefits. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Dunn v. Chater, No. CA-95-1164 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2