Hayes v. Apfel, Commissioner

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-1145
JEFFREY W. HAYES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis-
trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
District Judge. (CA-98-27-2)
Submitted: June 15, 1999 Decided: August 17, 1999
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HALL,* Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roger D. Forman, FORMAN & CRANE, L.C., Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith,
*
Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel for this case
but died prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is
filed by a quorum of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Deputy Chief Counsel, Nicole Appalucci, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States
Attorney, Kelly R. Curry, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey W. Hayes appeals from the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
granting summary judgment to the Commissioner in his action for
social security disability benefits. The Commissioner’s deter-
mination that a significant number of jobs exists in the national
economy that Hayes could perform is supported by substantial
evidence. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 423(d)(2)(A) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999);
Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986); McLain v.
Schweiker, 715 F.2d 866, 869 (4th Cir. 1983).
Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s
decision, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequate-
ly set forth in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2