Case v. Astrue

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided September 11, 2008·No. 08-1018·Unpublished

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1018

KENNETH M. CASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, Magistrate Judge. (8:06-cv-02293-BHH)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard J. Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 - PER CURIAM:

Kenneth M. Case appeals the magistrate judge’s order

affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny disability insurance

benefits and supplemental security income.* 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 parties’ briefs,

administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint

appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

See Case v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-02293-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2007).

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

* The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 3 -

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

Case v. Astrue, (4th Cir. 2008).

Case v. Astrue (Case v. Astrue) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related