Filed: Oct. 22, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1692 TERESA C. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 22, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. T
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1692 TERESA C. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 22, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Te..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-1692 TERESA C. BOOKER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-01-105-2) Submitted: October 10, 2002 Decided: October 22, 2002 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Teresa C. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Allyson Sinclair Jozwik, Frank V. Smith, III, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Teresa C. Booker appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the Commissioner’s decision denying Booker’s claim for a period of disability and disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Booker v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-105-2 (W.D. Va. May 7, 2002). 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