Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Coates v. Barnhart, 04-1142 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1142 Visitors: 17
Filed: May 20, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1142 LIONEL J. COATES, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02- 2658-PWG) Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 20, 2005 Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam
More
                              UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 04-1142



LIONEL J. COATES, SR.,

                                                  Plaintiff - Appellant,

          versus


JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner           of   the
Social Security Administration,

                                                   Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge. (CA-02-
2658-PWG)


Submitted:   March 30, 2005                       Decided:   May 20, 2005


Before MICHAEL, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Alan Tibbetts, LAW OFFICES OF DAVID A. TIBBETTS, Odenton,
Maryland, for Appellant. Allen F. Loucks, United States Attorney,
Neil R. White, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

             Lionel J. Coates, Sr., appeals the magistrate judge’s

order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income.*               We must uphold the

decision     to   deny    benefits     if    the   decision   is   supported   by

substantial evidence and the correct law was applied.                      See 42

U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 
76 F.3d 585
, 589 (4th Cir.

1996).      We have thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and

the briefs and find no reversible error.               Accordingly, we affirm

for   the    reasons     stated   by   the   magistrate   judge.      Coates   v.

Barnhart, No. CA-02-2658-PWG (D. Md. Dec. 3, 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




      *
      The parties consented to review by                  a   magistrate    judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (2000).


                                       - 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