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)
04-2068•Carroll Horton v. Jo Anne B. Barnhart, Commissioner of Social Security
04-2068Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 17, 2005
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2068
CARROLL HORTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-669-0-17BD)
Submitted: January 21, 2005 Decided: February 17, 2005
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles L. Martin, Decatur, Georgia, Paul T. McChesney,
Spartanburg, South Carolina, for Appellant. Frank W. Hunger,
Assistant Attorney General, J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney,
Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Laura Ridgell-
Boltz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Carroll N. Horton (“Horton”) appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the final decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration that he was no longer disabled, as defined
within Title II of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 401-433
(West 2003 & Supp. 2004). We have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the
district court. See Horton v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-669-0-17BD
(D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2004). 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.