Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Taylor v. Barnhart, 19-4682 (2008)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 19-4682 Visitors: 26
Filed: Apr. 16, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1817 WAYNE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00282-DLH) Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V.
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1817 WAYNE TAYLOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00282-DLH) Submitted: April 4, 2008 Decided: April 16, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Dino Trubiano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Wayne Taylor appeals the magistrate judge’s* order denying his motion for summary judgment and granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment on his claim for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Taylor v. Barnhart, No. 1:06- cv-00282-DLH (W.D.N.C. June 27, 2007). 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 the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (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