Emma L. Hand v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-2245
EMMA L. HAND,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Danville. Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate
Judge. (CA-01-38-4)
Submitted: March 7, 2003 Decided: March 20, 2003
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry L. Williams, Jr., WILLIAMS, LUCK & WILLIAMS, Danville,
Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Assistant Regional Chief
Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Andrew C. Lynch,
Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L.
Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United
States Attorney, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE, Roanoke,
Virginia, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 2 --

* The parties consented to review by a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(2) (2000).
2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Emma L. Hand seeks review of the magistrate judge’s order*
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits
pursuant to 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1520(f), 416.920(f) (2002). Our review
of the record discloses that the Commissioner’s decision is based
upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. In
particular, we find that substantial evidence supports a finding
that Hand is unable to meet the requirements of either 20 C.F.R.
Part 404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 1.03 (1998) or 20 C.F.R. Part
404, Subpart P, Appendix 1, § 1.02 (2002). Accordingly, we affirm
the magistrate judge’s order. Hand v. Commissioner of SSA, No. CA-
01-38-4 (W.D. Va. Aug. 26, 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

-- 2 of 2 --