Court Opinion

ID: 999583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 17:27:40.448747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:04.835096
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

CHERYL A. FAGG,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                        No. 98-2644
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF
SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Glen E. Conrad, Magistrate Judge.
(CA-98-118-R)

Submitted: April 30, 1999

Decided: August 23, 1999

Before WILKINS and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges,
and HALL,* Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Charles D. Bennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert P.
Crouch, Jr., United States Attorney, Alonzo H. Long, Assistant
_________________________________________________________________
*Senior Judge Hall was assigned to the panel for this case but died
prior to the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum
of the panel. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
United States Attorney, Arthur J. Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte
J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti,
Associate General Counsel, Etzion Brand, Acting Chief, Retirement,
Survivors and Supplemental Assistance Litigation Branch, Office of
the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Cheryl Fagg appeals the district court's order dismissing this action
seeking social security disability insurance benefits (DIB) for want of
subject matter jurisdiction.

Fagg filed her first application for DIB in 1992, alleging disability
as of December 31, 1980. Her application was denied initially and on
reconsideration. An administrative law judge (ALJ) issued an unfa-
vorable decision, which the Appeals Council upheld. The district
court found that substantial evidence supported the decision denying
benefits, and this court affirmed. See Fagg v. Chater, No. 95-2097
(4th Cir. Feb. 3, 1997) (unpublished).

Fagg filed a second application for DIB in 1995, again claiming a
disability onset date of December 31, 1980. She alleged the same dis-
abling conditions as in her previous application for benefits. After her
application was denied initially and on reconsideration, Fagg
requested a hearing before an ALJ. The ALJ dismissed her request,
finding that res judicata barred consideration of her request for a hear-
ing, which involved the identical facts and issues as the earlier deci-
sion. The ALJ also found no reason to reopen the earlier decision.

Fagg then filed a complaint in the district court. Acting pursuant
to the parties' consent, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (1994), a magistrate

                     2
judge concluded that the ALJ properly denied Fagg's request for a
hearing and that the court was without subject matter jurisdiction to
address her claims. Fagg timely appeals from that decision. She
asserts that the Commissioner and the district court erred by failing
to reopen her prior claim and by applying res judicata to bar consider-
ation of her present claim for benefits. Fagg also contends that she
was under a mental disability such that the denial of her request for
a hearing deprived her of due process.

After carefully reviewing the materials before us, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision and the
correct law was applied. We discern no reversible error in the deci-
sion below, and we accordingly affirm on the reasoning of the district
court. See Fagg v. Apfel, No. CA-98-118-R (W.D. Va. Oct. 5, 1998).
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                    3