Case ID: f-appx_1/html/0124-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Henry HARMEL, III, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Kenneth S. APFEL, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 00-1302.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 21, 2000.
    Decided Jan. 5, 2001.
    Stephen F. Shea, Willoner, Calabrese & Rosen, P.A., College Park, MD, for appellant. Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy General, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General, Sharon M. Saffron, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, MD, for appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   PER CURIAM.

Henry Harmel, III, appeals the magistrate judge’s order granting the Commissioner’s motion for summary judgment in his action challenging the Commissioner’s denial of social security benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Harmel v. Apfel, No. CA-99-33 DKC (D. Md. Jan. 14 & 19, 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 jurisdiction of the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (1994).
     
      
      . Although the orders from which Harmel appeals were filed on January 12, 2000, and January 18, 2000, respectively, they were entered on the district court’s docket sheet on January 14, 2000, and January 19, 2000, respectively. January 14, 2000, and January 19, 2000 are therefore the effective dates of the magistrate judge’s decisions. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 58 and 79(a); see also Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).