Filed: Oct. 08, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1580 KINGGOBE AFRICAN ASSEGAI, VII, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00490-HEH) Submitted: September 27, 2019 Decided: October 8, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and QUATTL
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1580 KINGGOBE AFRICAN ASSEGAI, VII, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00490-HEH) Submitted: September 27, 2019 Decided: October 8, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and QUATTLE..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 19-1580 KINGGOBE AFRICAN ASSEGAI, VII, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:18-cv-00490-HEH) Submitted: September 27, 2019 Decided: October 8, 2019 Before KING, FLOYD, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kinggobe African Assegai, VII, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kinggobe African Assegai, VII, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Assegai’s claim for additional retirement benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Assegai v. Saul, No. 3:18-cv-00490-HEH (E.D. Va. May 14, 2019). 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
