Filed: Jun. 22, 1999
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1531 WILLIAM F. ALLEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. CHAPMAN, Social Security Disability Law Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-99-44-1) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1531 WILLIAM F. ALLEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. CHAPMAN, Social Security Disability Law Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-99-44-1) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed b..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-1531 WILLIAM F. ALLEN, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RONALD J. CHAPMAN, Social Security Disability Law Judge, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, District Judge. (CA-99-44-1) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 22, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William F. Allen, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William Allen, Sr., appeals the district court’s order dis- missing his civil action. We have reviewed the record and the dis- trict court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Allen v. Chapman, No. CA-99-44-1 (N.D.W. Va. Mar. 25, 1999). 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
