Taylor v. Astrue

Fourth Circuit

Taylor v. Astrue

300 F. App'x 208

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedNovember 18, 2008

DocketNo. 08-1716

StatusPublished

This text of 300 F. App'x 208 (Taylor 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

Taylor v. Astrue, 300 F. App'x 208 (4th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Monica M. Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Taylor’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We must [209]*209uphold the district court’s disability determination if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp.2008); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-00307-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 23, 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

PER CURIAM.

Monica M. Taylor appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Taylor’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We must [209]*209uphold the district court’s disability determination if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp.2008); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Taylor v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-00307-HEH (E.D.Va. Apr. 23, 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)

300 F. App'x 208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-v-astrue-ca4-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack