Case Name: Ethel ROSE, on behalf of Taevon ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-11-08
Citations: 50 F. App'x 613
Docket Number: No. 02-1329
Parties: Ethel ROSE, on behalf of Taevon ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 50
Pages: 613–614

Head Matter:
Ethel ROSE, on behalf of Taevon ROSE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 02-1329.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 24, 2002.
Decided Nov. 8, 2002.
Ethel Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Matthew Schenning, United States Attorney, Divya Bharadwaja, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Eileen Alice Farmer, Social Security Administration, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAM D. WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and DIANA GRIBBON MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Ethel Rose, on behalf of Taevon Rose, appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's termination of children's supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We must uphold the district court's disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). There is substantial evidence in the record for the district court's decision to terminate benefits based upon medical improvement and lack of current disability. 20 C.F.R. § 416.924, 416.994a(c) (2000). Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Rose v. Barnhart, No. CA-01-1055-H (D.Md. March 6, 2002). 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.