Irving v. Barnhart

Fourth Circuit

Irving v. Barnhart

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 23, 2005

Docket04-2195

StatusUnpublished

This text of Irving v. Barnhart (Irving 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

Irving v. Barnhart, (4th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-2195

MARY E. IRVING,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (CA-03-508-7)

Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 23, 2005

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles D. Bennett, Jr., Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Mary E. Irving appeals the district court’s order

affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Irving’s claim for a period

of disability and disability insurance benefits, and a subsequent

order denying her motion for reconsideration. 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, the

parties’ briefs, and the district court’s opinion and orders, and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons

stated by the district court. Irving v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-508-7

(W.D. Va. May 14, 2004; July 21, 2004). 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