Case Name: Doris O. MONROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2001-10-16
Citations: 20 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 01-1652
Parties: Doris O. MONROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 20
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
Doris O. MONROE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-1652.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 3, 2001.
Decided Oct. 16, 2001.
J. Kevin Morton, Winston Salem, NC, for appellant. Stuart E. Schiffer, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Benjamin H. White, Jr., United States Attorney, Mary Ann Sloan, Regional Chief, Dennis R. Williams, Deputy Regional Chief, John C. Stoner, Assistant Regional, Brian C. Hu-berty, Assistant Regional, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Atlanta, GA, for appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Doris O. Monroe appeals the district court's order granting the Commissioner's motion to remand to the Social Security Administration (SSA) pursuant to sentence four of 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp. 2001). Monroe argues the district court erred in remanding to the SSA because she met listing 9.09 in 20 C.F.R. Pt. 404, Subpt. P, App. 1 (1998) at the time her administrative review became final. She argues the SSA's subsequent deletion of listing 9 .09 should not affect her claim for disability insurance benefits. We review the district court's remand to the Commissioner for abuse of discretion. See Higgins v. Apfel, 222 F.3d 504, 505 (8th Cir. 2000); Harman v. Apfel, 211 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.), cert, denied, 531 U.S. 1038, 121 S.Ct. 628, 148 L.Ed.2d 537 (2000); Nelson v. Apfel, 210 F.3d 799, 802 (7th Cir.2000). Because we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in remanding, we affirm. 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.