Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Lashley v. Apfel, Commissioner, 00-1463 (2000)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-1463 Visitors: 2
Filed: Oct. 11, 2000
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1463 MARCIA LASHLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-966-1) Submitted: September 14, 2000 Decided: October 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1463 MARCIA LASHLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis- trict of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-98-966-1) Submitted: September 14, 2000 Decided: October 11, 2000 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. David W. Ogden, Assistant Attorney General, Walter C. Holton, United States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Regional Chief Counsel, Dennis R. Williams, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Mary C. Rice, Branch Chief, James M. Flournoy, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Marcia Lashley appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendant in Lashley’s suit for disability 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 affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lashley v. Apfel, No. CA-98-966-1 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 29, 2000). 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