Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Sturgill v. Apfel, Commissioner, 98-1466 (1998)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-1466 Visitors: 23
Filed: Oct. 14, 1998
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1466 CAROLYN R. STURGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-96-127-B) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-1466 CAROLYN R. STURGILL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-96-127-B) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 14, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Carolyn R. Sturgill, Appellant Pro Se. David Marcellus Frazier, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Carolyn R. Sturgill appeals the district court’s order affirm- ing the Commissioner’s denial of supplemental security income bene- fits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sturgill v. Apfel, Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. CA-96-127-B (W.D. Va. Feb. 26, 1998). 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
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