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)
02-2342•Cherie L. Thompson v. JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security
02-2342Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMay 19, 2003
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
-- 1 of 3 --
2
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 of 3 --
3
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
-- 3 of 3 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.