Case ID: f-appx_10/html/0122-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Odell COLEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William A. HALTER, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-2360.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 30, 2001.
    Decided May 16, 2001.
    Stephen F. Shea, Willoner, Calabrese & Rosen, P.A., College Park, MD, for appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Acting General Counsel, Frank V. Smith III, Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Counsel for Program Litigation, Etzion Brand, Supervisory Attorney, Retirement Survivors Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
   PER CURIAM.

Odell Coley appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting the Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment and affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and the administrative record and find no reversible error in the Commissioner’s finding that Coley was not entitled to benefits because the onset date of his disability occurred after his insured status had expired. Furthermore, contrary to Coley’s assertion that the administrative law judge should have further developed the record because Coley was not represented by counsel at the administrative hearing, we find that further development was unnecessary. See Flaten v. Secretary of Heath & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1458 (9th Cir.1995) (holding that claimant cannot receive benefits for recurrence of disability, if current period of disability began after expiration of insured status).

Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Coley v. Halter, No. CA-99-3529-AMD (D.Md. Aug. 21, 2000). 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. 
      
       The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West 1993 & Supp. 2000).