Darryl Stevens v. Michael Astrue
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998663335].. [11-1338]
Appeal: 11-1338
Document: 14
Date Filed: 08/25/2011
Page: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1338
DARRYL W. STEVENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg.
Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu)
Submitted:
August 18, 2011
Decided:
August 25, 2011
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl W. Stevens, Appellant Pro Se.
Kenneth DiVito, Amanda
Reinitz,
Assistant
Regional
Counsels,
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 11-1338
Document: 14
Date Filed: 08/25/2011
Page: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Darryl W. Stevens appeals the district court’s order
accepting
the
recommendation
of
the
magistrate
judge
and
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Stevens a period
of
disability
income.
insurance
benefits
and
supplemental
security
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) (2006); Johnson v.
Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
have
thoroughly
error.
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
We
reversible
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court.
Stevens v. Astrue, No. 6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu
(E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2011).
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
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?