Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Di Lauro v. Apfel, 98-2811 (1999)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 98-2811 Visitors: 24
Filed: Aug. 19, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2811 PETER J. DI LAURO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-90-4-BO) Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 19, 1999 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2811 PETER J. DI LAURO, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern Dis- trict of North Carolina, at New Bern. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-90-4-BO) Submitted: July 27, 1999 Decided: August 19, 1999 Before WILKINS and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Peter J. Di Lauro, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Dickerson Kocher, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Peter J. Di Lauro appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner in this action chal- lenging the Commissioner’s decision denying Di Lauro’s application for disability insurance 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 af- firm on the reasoning of the district court. See Di Lauro v. Apfel, No. CA-97-90-4-BO (E.D.N.C. Sept. 29, 1998). 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
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