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)
99-2672•Betty Deloris Jones v. KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security
99-2672Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 15, 2000
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2672
BETTY DELORIS JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District
Judge. (CA-98-125-B)
Submitted: May 31, 2000 Decided: June 15, 2000
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John P. Bradwell, SHORTIDGE & SHORTIDGE, Norton, Virginia, for Ap-
pellant. John M. Sacchetti, Regional Chief Counsel, Lori Karimoto,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, John F. Corcoran, Assistant
United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Betty Deloris Jones appeals the district court’s order accept-
ing the recommendation of the magistrate judge and entering summary
judgment to the Commissioner in this action challenging the denial
of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record,
briefs, and the district court’s opinion accepting the recommen-
dation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error.
Therefore, we grant the motion to submit the case on the briefs and
affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Jones v. Apfel,
No. CA-98-125-B (W.D. Va. Nov. 2, 1999). 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.