Filed: Aug. 21, 1997
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1701 LEWIS WAYNE HUMPHREY, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting 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-96-90-A) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1701 LEWIS WAYNE HUMPHREY, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting 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-96-90-A) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1701 LEWIS WAYNE HUMPHREY, SSN XXX-XX-XXXX, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN J. CALLAHAN, Acting 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-96-90-A) Submitted: August 14, 1997 Decided: August 21, 1997 Before NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and BUTZNER and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lewis Wayne Humphrey, Appellant Pro Se. Margaret J. Krecke, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security denying his claims for a period of disability and disability insurance bene- fits. 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. Humphrey v. Callahan, No. CA-96-90-A (W.D. Va. Apr. 7, 1997). 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