Kenneth Case v. Michael Astrue
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH M. CASE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD, Party in Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, Magistrate Judge. (8:06-cv-02293-BHH)
July 31, 2008
September 11, 2008
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard J. Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy
Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas S. Inman, Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM: Kenneth M. Case appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.* decision to deny benefits if the We must uphold the is supported by
substantial evidence and the correct law was applied.
U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties' briefs,
administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.
See Case v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-02293-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2007). 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000). - 3 -
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?