Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

McGlocklin v. Apfel, Commissioner, 97-1223 (1997)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 97-1223 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 18, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1223 NANCY B. MCGLOCKLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-95-206-A) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublish
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1223 NANCY B. MCGLOCKLIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western Dis- trict of Virginia, at Abingdon. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-95-206-A) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nancy B. McGlocklin, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael Melendez, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. McGlocklin v. Apfel, No. CA-95-206-A (W.D. Va. Dec. 16, 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
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