Ramsey v. Astrue

Filing 920080617


Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1750 TAMILLA L. BARNARD RAMSEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell, Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00234-DLH) Submitted: May 29, 2008 Decided: June 17, 2008 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Region I, Jason W. Valencia, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tamilla L. Bernard Ramsey appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny 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, We have thoroughly reviewed the 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). parties' briefs, administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. we affirm. Accordingly, See Ramsey v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-00234-DLH (W.D.N.C. We dispense with oral argument because the facts June 2, 2007). 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 the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 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?