Filed: May 21, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1603 ALBERT B. HAGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-331-3) Submitted: April 30, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1603 ALBERT B. HAGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-331-3) Submitted: April 30, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1603 ALBERT B. HAGER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge. (CA-96-331-3) Submitted: April 30, 1998 Decided: May 21, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Albert B. Hager, Appellant Pro Se. Anne von Scheven, SOCIAL SECU- RITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Albert B. Hager appeals the district court's order granting the Appellee's motion for summary judgment in his claim for dis- ability 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. Hager v. Apfel, No. CA-96-331-3 (S.D.W. Va. Apr. 11, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma- terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2