UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-2120
RICHARD L. WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Dennis W. Shedd, District Judge.
(CA-99-272-2-19-AJ)
Submitted: December 29, 1999 Decided: February 4, 2000
Before WILLIAMS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mortimer M. Weinberg, III, WEINBERG, BROWN & CURTIS, Sumter, South
Carolina, for Appellant. J. Rene Josey, United States Attorney,
John B. Grimball, Assistant United States Attorney, Arthur J.
Fried, General Counsel, Charlotte J. Hardnett, Principal Deputy
General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti, Associate General Counsel,
Sharon M. Saffron, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
PER CURIAM:
Richard Williams appeals the order of the district court
granting the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack
of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and the district
court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the
reasoning of the district court. See Williams v. Apfel, No. CA-99-
275-2-19-AJ (D.S.C. July 12, 1999).* There is no merit to
Williams’ arguments that the Administrative Law Judge lacked
jurisdiction to issue his July 1995 amended decision or that the
doctrine of “manifest injustice” applies to Williams’ case. 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
*
Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on
July 9, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered
on the docket sheet on July 12, 1999. It is the date the order was
entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of
the district court’s decision. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and 79(a);
Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).
2