Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Morrison v. Apfel, Commissioner, 00-2102 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2102 Visitors: 18
Filed: Feb. 26, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2102 PATRICIA A. MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-101-5) Submitted: January 26, 2001 Decided: February 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Aff
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2102 PATRICIA A. MORRISON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CA-99-101-5) Submitted: January 26, 2001 Decided: February 26, 2001 Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory L. Kordic, KORDIC & ASSOCIATES, Cleveland, Ohio, for Appel- lant. Melvin W. Kahle, Jr., United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Acting General Counsel, Frank V. Smith, III, Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Coun- sel for Program Litigation, Etzion Brand, Supervisory Attorney, Retirement, Survivors and Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINIS- TRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Patricia A. Morrison appeals the district court’s order dis- missing her complaint against the Commissioner of the Social Secu- rity Administration. 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 Morrison v. Apfel, Commis- sioner, No. CA-99-101-5 (N.D.W. Va. June 23, 2001). 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