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

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-2336 MICHAEL MILLARD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL

SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Jillyn K. Schulze, Magistrate Judge. (CA-

-3368-MJG)

Submitted: April 28, 2000 Decided: September 18, 2000

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Elliott Denbo Andalman, ANDALMAN & FLYNN, P.C., Silver Spring,

Maryland, for Appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attor-

ney, Allen F. Loucks, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy

General Counsel, James A. Winn, Associate General Counsel, Litiga-

tion Division, Charlotte M. Connery-Aujla, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN-

ISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1) (1994). 2 Although the magistrate judge’s order is dated June 21, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the

docket sheet on June 22, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order

was physically entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See

Wilson v. Murray

, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:

Michael Millard appeals from the magistrate judge’s order 1 af- firming the administrative law judge’s decision to deny disability

insurance benefits. We have reviewed the briefs and the adminis-

trative record, and find that substantial evidence supports the

administrative law judge’s decision. See

Hays v. Sullivan

, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, we affirm substan-

tially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. See

Millard v. Apfel

, No. CA-98-3368-MJG (D. Md. Jun. 22, 1999). 2 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

---