Brewer v. Barnhart

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 27, 2005
Docket05-1383
StatusUnpublished

This text of Brewer v. Barnhart (Brewer v. Barnhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Brewer v. Barnhart, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-1383

JOHN C. BREWER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-12-1)

Submitted: August 31, 2005 Decided: September 27, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Paul Cohen, COHEN, ABATE & COHEN, L.C., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel, Nora R. Koch, Supervisory Regional Counsel, Brian O’Donnell, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

John C. Brewer appeals the district court’s order

accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the

Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance benefits from April

1, 1996, to September 30, 2000. We must uphold the decision to

deny benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence

and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000);

Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have

thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and the parties’

briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Brewer v. Barnhart,

No. CA-04-12-1 (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 8, 2005). 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

- 2 -

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Brewer v. Barnhart, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brewer-v-barnhart-ca4-2005.