Hand v. Barnhart ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 02-2245
    EMMA L. HAND,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMISSIONER    OF      THE    SOCIAL   SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Danville. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate
    Judge. (CA-01-38-4)
    Submitted:   March 7, 2003                  Decided:   March 20, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jerry L. Williams, Jr., WILLIAMS, LUCK & WILLIAMS, Danville,
    Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Assistant Regional Chief
    Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Andrew C. Lynch,
    Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L.
    Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United
    States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Emma L. Hand seeks review of the magistrate judge’s order*
    affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits
    pursuant to 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520
    (f), 416.920(f) (2002). Our review
    of the record discloses that the Commissioner’s decision is based
    upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error.      In
    particular, we find that substantial evidence supports a finding
    that Hand is unable to meet the requirements of either 20 C.F.R.
    Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 1.03 (1998) or 20 C.F.R. Part
    404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 1.02 (2002).   Accordingly, we affirm
    the magistrate judge’s order. Hand v. Commissioner of SSA, No. CA-
    01-38-4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 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
    *
    The parties consented to review by a magistrate judge
    pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c)(2) (2000).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 02-2245

Filed Date: 3/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/31/2014