Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Thompson v. Barnhart, 02-2342 (2003)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 02-2342 Visitors: 20
Filed: May 19, 2003
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2342 CHERIE L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee, and LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-91-1) Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-2342 CHERIE L. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee, and LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-91-1) Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Paul Cohen, COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Nicole L. Appalucci, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). 2 PER CURIAM: Cherie L. Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s decision granting summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security in this action seeking disability insurance benefits. After reviewing the record and briefs, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision and the correct law was applied. Accordingly, we find that the issues raised on appeal lack merit, and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Thompson v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-91-1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 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 3
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