Thompson v. Barnhart

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMay 19, 2003
Docket02-2342
StatusUnpublished

This text of Thompson v. Barnhart (Thompson v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Thompson v. Barnhart, (4th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-2342

CHERIE L. THOMPSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-91-1)

Submitted: April 30, 2003 Decided: May 19, 2003

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard Paul Cohen, COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Nicole L. Appalucci, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

2 PER CURIAM:

Cherie L. Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting

the magistrate judge’s decision granting summary judgment in favor

of the Commissioner of Social Security in this action seeking

disability insurance benefits. After reviewing the record and

briefs, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the

Commissioner’s decision and the correct law was applied.

Accordingly, we find that the issues raised on appeal lack merit,

and we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See

Thompson v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-91-1 (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 25, 2002).

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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Thompson v. Barnhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/thompson-v-barnhart-ca4-2003.