Filed: Dec. 17, 2002
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2184 DOTTIE M. WOMACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-59) Submitted: November 26, 2002 Decided: December 17, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Do
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2184 DOTTIE M. WOMACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-59) Submitted: November 26, 2002 Decided: December 17, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dot..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2184 DOTTIE M. WOMACK, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL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 Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (CA-01-59) Submitted: November 26, 2002 Decided: December 17, 2002 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dottie M. Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Dottie M. Womack seeks review of the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to affirm the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(c), 416.920(c)(2002). Our review of the record discloses that the Commissioner’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Womack v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-59 (W.D. Va. Sept. 16 & 27, 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