Randolph v. Apfel, Commissioner

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2750 WILLIAM S. RANDOLPH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern Dis- trict of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., District Judge. (CA-97-542) Submitted: June 29, 1999 Decided: August 3, 1999 Before ERVIN, HAMILTON, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory W. Evers, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Chief Counsel, Region III, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Eda Giusti, Assistant Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Rebecca A. Betts, United States Attorney, Stephen Horn, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: William S. Randolph appeals the district court’s order affirm- ing the Commissioner of Social Security’s finding that he is not disabled and therefore not entitled to disability benefits. Randolph argues that the Commissioner erred in finding that his impairments did not meet or equal section 1.05C of the listing of impairments, in evaluating his residual functional capacity, in evaluating his pain, and in finding that he is capable of per- forming at a restricted light work level. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Randolph v. Apfel, Commissioner, No. CA-97-542 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 30, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate- rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2