Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Osgar v. Barnhart, 04-1685 (2005)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 04-1685 Visitors: 51
Filed: Jan. 05, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1685 BRYAN OSGAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-02-2552-0-18BD) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1685 BRYAN OSGAR, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-02-2552-0-18BD) Submitted: November 30, 2004 Decided: January 5, 2005 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Daniel Mayes, Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Laura Ridgell-Boltz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Bryan Osgar appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Osgar’s application for 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 Osgar v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-2552-0-18BD (D.S.C. Mar. 29, 2004). 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