Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Terry Chapman v. Commissioner, Social Security, 16-1173 (2017)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 16-1173 Visitors: 27
Filed: Jan. 09, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1173 TERRY R. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03761-WMN) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry R. Chapman,
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1173 TERRY R. CHAPMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-03761-WMN) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 9, 2017 Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terry R. Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Gabriel Robert Deadwyler, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Bethesda, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terry R. Chapman appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, granting summary judgment to the Commissioner, and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Chapman’s application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Chapman v. Comm’r, No. 1:14-cv-03761-WMN (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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