Archie T. Boone v. WILLIAM A. HALTER, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1770
ARCHIE T. BOONE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM A. HALTER, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle Dis-
trict of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-857-1)
Submitted: December 27, 2001 Decided: January 15, 2002
Before WIDENER and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael B. Sosna, PERRY, ANTHONY & SOSNA, Rocky Mount, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin H. White, United States Attorn-
ey, Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Ann
Sloan, Regional Chief Counsel, Dennis R. Williams, Deputy Regional
Chief Counsel, Nadine DeLuca Elder, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Brian C. Huberty, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Atlanta, Georgia, for
Appellee.

-- 1 of 2 --

* To the extent that the Commissioner failed to follow
procedures set forth in his Hearings, Appeals and Litigation Law
Manual, we find that Boone failed to show prejudice resulting from
rigorous adherence to those procedures.
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Archie T. Boone appeals the district court’s order upholding
the denial of his application for disability benefits and sup-
plemental security income. We have reviewed the record and the
district court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magis-
trate judge and find no reversible error. The ALJ did not abrogate
his duty to advise Boone of the availability of representation. *
Nor did the ALJ fail to assist Boone, a pro se claimant, in
developing the record. Finally, substantial evidence supports the
Commissioner’s decision. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. See Boone v. Halter, No. CA-99-857-1
(M.D.N.C. Apr. 26, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the ma-
terials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 2 of 2 --