Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01628/USCOURTS-ca8-04-01628-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
James E. Attia
Appellant
Jo Anne B. Barnhart
Appellee

Document Text:

1

The Honorable Charles B. Kornmann, United States District Judge for the

District of South Dakota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable

Mark A. Moreno, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of South Dakota. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-1628

___________

James E. Attia, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of South Dakota

Jo Anne B. Barnhart, *

Commissioner of the Social * [UNPUBLISHED]

Security Administration, *

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: September 7, 2004

Filed: September 13, 2004

___________

Before WOLLMAN, McMILLIAN, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

James Attia appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

 for

the District of South Dakota affirming the Social Security Commissioner’s decision

denying his application for disability insurance benefits (DIB). For reversal, Attia

argues the case should have been either reopened or remanded for consideration of

Appellate Case: 04-1628 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/13/2004 Entry ID: 1810204 
-2-

new evidence he had submitted. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm the

judgment of the district court. 

We conclude that substantial evidence supports the determination that Attia

lacked the requisite quarters of coverage to give him insured status for DIB. See

Harris v. Barnhart, 356 F.3d 926, 928 (8th Cir. 2004) (standard of review). Further,

we agree with the district court that the case was not appropriate for remand because

none of the new evidence Attia submitted clearly showed that he had received a back

pay award for five years in the 1970s. 

Finally, we deny as moot Attia’s motion on appeal to waive the appellate filing

fee, as he has already been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, we affirm. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 04-1628 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/13/2004 Entry ID: 1810204