Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Sweeney v. Apfel, Commissioner, 98-1404 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1404 Visitors: 72
Filed: Jul. 29, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1404 MOSES SWEENEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Jillyn K. Schulze, Magistrate Judge. (CA- 97-1631-AW) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam o
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1404 MOSES SWEENEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Jillyn K. Schulze, Magistrate Judge. (CA- 97-1631-AW) Submitted: June 23, 1998 Decided: July 29, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Moses Sweeney, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth DiVito, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Appellant Moses J. Sweeney appeals the magistrate judge’s order and memorandum opinion affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying his application for disability insurance benefits.* We have reviewed the record and the magistrate judges’s memorandum opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reason- ing of the magistrate judge. Sweeney v. Apfel, CA-97-1631-AW (D. Md. Jan. 23, 1998). 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 in the decisional process. AFFIRMED * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (1994). 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