Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Carter v. Barnhart, 04-1409 (2004)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1409 Visitors: 18
Filed: Nov. 22, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1409 GLENN W. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-8) Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1409 GLENN W. CARTER, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. Glen M. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-8) Submitted: October 22, 2004 Decided: November 22, 2004 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Roger W. Rutherford, WOLFE, WILLIAMS & RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Glenn W. Carter appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment for the Commissioner and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Carter v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-8 (W.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2003). 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