Fink v. Barnhart, Comm

Filing 920070315

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-1694 CURTIS B. FINK, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF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 North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (1:04-cv-00266) Submitted: February 21, 2007 Decided: March 15, 2007 Before TRAXLER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. V. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Sidney P. Alexander, Assistant United States Attorney, Rami M. Vanegas, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Curtis B. Fink, Sr., appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.* decision to deny benefits if the We must uphold the is supported by decision 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 Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons find no reversible error. stated by the magistrate judge. See Fink v. Barnhart, No. 1:04-cv00266 (W.D.N.C. filed Apr. 18, 2006; entered Apr. 19, 2006). 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 jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. 636(c) (2000). - 2 - *

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?