Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Killian v. Apfel, Commissioner, 98-2657 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2657 Visitors: 5
Filed: Apr. 30, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2657 PAMELA A. KILLIAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-97-97-5-V) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2657 PAMELA A. KILLIAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-97-97-5-V) Submitted: April 13, 1999 Decided: April 30, 1999 Before ERVIN, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter B. Patterson, LEWIS & PATTERSON, Statesville, North Caro- lina; Phil M. Teague, TEAGUE & CARPENTER, Statesville, North Caro- lina, for Appellant. Mark T. Calloway, United States Attorney, Joseph L. Brinkley, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Pamela Killian appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security on Killian’s claim of disability under the Social Security Act. See Killian v. Apfel, No. CA-97-97-5-V (W.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Killian fails to show that the decision of the Administra- tive Law Judge (“ALJ”) was not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm. 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