Lacey S. Mitchell v. Commissioner, Social Security
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00723-BPG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998987355]. Mailed to: Lacey S. Mitchell. [12-1860]
Appeal: 12-1860
Doc: 6
Filed: 11/26/2012
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1860
LACEY S. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Beth P. Gesner, Magistrate Judge.
(1:11-cv-00723-BPG)
Submitted:
November 20, 2012
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided: November 26, 2012
and
SHEDD
and
FLOYD,
Circuit
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lacey S. Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-1860
Doc: 6
Filed: 11/26/2012
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Lacey S. Mitchell appeals the magistrate judge’s order
affirming
benefits. *
the
Commissioner’s
denial
of
disability
insurance
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
reviewed
the
record
and
find
no
reversible
We
error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate
judge.
Mitchell v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-cv-00723-BPG (D.
Md. June 14, 2012).
facts
and
materials
legal
before
We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions
are
adequately
this
and
argument
court
presented
would
not
in
the
aid
the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
The parties consented to proceeding before a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (2006).
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?