Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Lemond v. Barnhart, 10-1139 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 10-1139 Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 15, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1139 LORETTE M. LEMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social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 Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00567-sgw-mfu) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: December 15, 2010 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. L
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-1139 LORETTE M. LEMOND, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social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 Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:06-cv-00567-sgw-mfu) Submitted: October 29, 2010 Decided: December 15, 2010 Before DUNCAN, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorette M. Lemond, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Giacchino, OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia; Jillian Elizabeth Kipp, Assistant Regional Counsel, Eric P. Kressman, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorette M. Lemond appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment, and affirming the decision of the Commissioner to deny Lemond disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lemond v. Barnhart, No. 7:06-cv-00567- sgw-mfu (W.D. Va. Dec. 3, 2009). 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