Johnson v. Astrue

Fourth Circuit

Johnson v. Astrue

320 F. App'x 193

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedApril 8, 2009

DocketNo. 08-2133

StatusPublished

This text of 320 F. App'x 193 (Johnson v. Astrue) 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

Johnson v. Astrue, 320 F. App'x 193 (4th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Peggy I. Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny her summary judgment motion and to grant the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-00015-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2008). 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.

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

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Peggy I. Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny her summary judgment motion and to grant the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion in her action seeking review of the Commissioner’s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits and Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Johnson v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-00015-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C. Oct. 2, 2008). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

320 F. App'x 193, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/johnson-v-astrue-ca4-2009.