The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
00-1653•G. Joseph Bellefeuille v. Kenneth S. Apfel, Commissioner of Social Security
00-1653Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJan 9, 2001
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-1653
G. JOSEPH BELLEFEUILLE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief Dis-
trict Judge. (CA-98-3743-9-17BD)
Submitted: December 21, 2000 Decided: January 9, 2001
Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Layne Birdsong, RICHARDSON & BIRDSONG, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, J.
Rene Josey, United States Attorney, John Berkley Grimball, Assis-
tant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief
Counsel, Michele M. Kelley, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Bellefeuille appeals the district court’s order af-
firming the Commissioner’s decision denying Bellefeuille’s appli-
cation for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s
opinion adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning
of the district court. Bellefeuille v. Apfel, No. CA-98-3743-9-
17BD (D.S.C. Mar. 16, 2000). 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.