Emily Mangus v. Shirley S. Chater, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Emily Mangus v. Shirley S. Chater, Comm'r of Soc. Sec., 101 F.3d 695 (4th Cir. 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
42 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Emily Mangus
v.
Shirley S. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security
96-1211.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Nov 18, 1996.
101 F.3d 695
Unpublished

101 F.3d 695

NOTICE: Fourth Circuit Local Rule 36(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth Circuit.
Emily MANGUS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Shirley S. CHATER, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96-1211.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 7, 1996.
Decided Nov. 18, 1996.

Emily Mangus, Appellant Pro Se. Charlotte Jefferson Hardnett, David Marcellus Frazier, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephen Michael Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

S.D.W.Va.

AFFIRMED

Before RUSSELL and WIDENER, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM:

1

Appellant appeals from the district court's order affirming the Secretary's final decision denying her claim for disability benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Mangus v. Chater, Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-94-171-2 (S.D.W.Va. Jan. 11, 1996). 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