Pafford v. Barnhart

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedFebruary 16, 2005
Docket04-1640
StatusUnpublished

This text of Pafford v. Barnhart (Pafford 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
Pafford v. Barnhart, (4th Cir. 2005).

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-1640

DEBBIE PAFFORD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-02-186-2)

Submitted: December 29, 2004 Decided: February 16, 2005

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon M. Williams, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Donna L. Calvert, Margaret M. Maguire, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

Debbie Pafford appeals the district court’s order

affirming the Commissioner’s denial of 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 administrative record and

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

for the reasons stated by the district court. See Pafford v.

Barnhart, No. CA-02-186-2 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

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