Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Meyers v. Apfel, Commissioner, 00-2231 (2001)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 00-2231 Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 07, 2001
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2231 LESLIE A. MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2083-WMN) Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: February 7, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublishe
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2231 LESLIE A. MEYERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, District Judge. (CA-99-2083-WMN) Submitted: January 23, 2001 Decided: February 7, 2001 Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald D. Hecht, Leslie L. Gladstone, P.A., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Acting General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate Gen- eral Counsel, Office of Program Litigation, Ejike H. Obineche, Of- fice of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Leslie A. Meyers appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Meyers’ application for dis- ability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. We find that the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly evaluated Meyers’ allegations of pain, gave due consideration to Meyers’ treating physician’s opinion, and asked a proper hypotheti- cal that set out Meyers’ circumstances and limitations as found by the ALJ. Accordingly, we affirm. 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