Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Rhodes v. Commissioner, SSA, 05-1626 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 05-1626 Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 20, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1626 CHRIS RHODES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-04-22-1) Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 20, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V. Lamar Gudger
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1626 CHRIS RHODES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg, District Judge. (CA-04-22-1) Submitted: March 10, 2006 Decided: April 20, 2006 Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER ATTORNEYS AT LAW, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, Robert Triba, Regional Chief Counsel, Lisa G. Smoller, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Chris Rhodes appeals the district court’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Social Security benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rhodes v. Commissioner, No. CA-04-22-1 (W.D.N.C. Mar. 31, 2005). 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