UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-2360
ODELL COLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM A. HALTER, Acting Commissioner of
Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Charles B. Day, Magistrate Judge. (CA-99-
3529-AMD)
Submitted: April 30, 2001 Decided: May 16, 2001
Before WILLIAMS, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen F. Shea, WILLONER, CALABRESE & ROSEN, P.A., College Park,
Maryland, for Appellant. Stephen M. Schenning, United States At-
torney, Ariana Wright Arnold, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charlotte J. Hardnett, Acting General Counsel, Frank V. Smith III,
Acting Principal Deputy General Counsel, John M. Sacchetti,
Associate General Counsel for Program Litigation, Etzion Brand,
Supervisory Attorney, Retirement Survivors Supplemental Assistance
Litigation Branch, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
2
PER CURIAM:
Odell Coley appeals the magistrate judge’s order* granting the
Commissioner of Social Security’s motion for summary judgment and
affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. We have
thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the joint appendix, and
the administrative record and find no reversible error in the Com-
missioner’s finding that Coley was not entitled to benefits because
the onset date of his disability occurred after his insured status
had expired. Furthermore, contrary to Coley’s assertion that the
administrative law judge should have further developed the record
because Coley was not represented by counsel at the administrative
hearing, we find that further development was unnecessary. See
Flaten v. Secretary of Heath & Human Servs., 44 F.3d 1453, 1458
(9th Cir. 1995) (holding that claimant cannot receive benefits for
recurrence of disability, if current period of disability began
after expiration of insured status).
Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the
magistrate judge. Coley v. Halter, No. CA-99-3529-AMD (D. Md. Aug.
21, 2000). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
*
The parties consented to the exercise of jurisdiction by the
magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(c)(1) (West
1993 & Supp. 2000).
3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4