Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hodge v. Apfel, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    6 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Michael Hodge is not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the Commissioner of Social Security's finding that Hodge was not disabled should be affirmed. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2000-05-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 99-2425

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Michael Hodge is not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the Commissioner of Social Security's finding that Hodge was not disabled should be affirmed. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    6 views2 pages

    Hodge v. Apfel, Commissioner, 4th Cir. (2000)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling that Michael Hodge is not disabled and not entitled to disability insurance benefits. The appeals court reviewed the record and found no reversible error, agreeing with the district court's reasoning that the Commissioner of Social Security's finding that Hodge was not disabled should be affirmed. The appeals court dispensed with oral arguments, finding the facts and legal issues were adequately presented in the case materials.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 99-2425

    MICHAEL HODGE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Charles H. Haden II, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-98-1096-2)

    Submitted:

    April 20, 2000

    Decided:

    May 1, 2000

    Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


    Michael Hodge, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Winn, Assistant
    Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Kelly
    Rixner Curry, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Hodge appeals the district courts order accepting the
    recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner of Social Securitys finding that Hodge is not disabled and
    therefore not entitled to disability insurance benefits.
    reviewed the record and find no reversible error.
    affirm on the reasoning of the district court.
    No. CA-98-1096-2 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 20, 1999).*

    We have

    Accordingly, we

    See Hodge v. Apfel,


    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

    Although the district courts order is marked as filed on


    September 17, 1999, the district courts records show that it was
    entered on the docket sheet on September 20, 1999. It is the date
    the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the
    effective date of the district courts decision. See Fed. R. Civ.
    P. 58 and 79(a); Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir.
    1986).
    2

    You might also like