Laster v. Massanari, Comm ( 2002 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-1639
    CHARLES K. LASTER,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    LARRY G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner,
    Social Security Administration,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
    District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-99-226-1)
    Submitted:   December 21, 2001            Decided:   January 24, 2002
    Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Susan Kipp McLaughlin, MCLAUGHLIN & CURRY, Fairmont, West Virginia,
    for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M.
    Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Robert S. Drum, Assistant Regional
    Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMIN-
    ISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick M. Flatley, United
    States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States
    Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles K. Laster appeals the district court's order that,
    based upon a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, up-
    held the Administrative Law Judge’s denial of his claims for Social
    Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income.
    We must uphold the decision to deny disability benefits if the
    decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law
    was applied.   See 
    42 U.S.C.A. § 405
    (g) (West Supp. 2001); Craig v.
    Chater, 
    76 F.3d 585
    , 589 (4th Cir. 1996).     We have reviewed the
    record and the district courts order and find no reversible error.
    Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and
    the magistrate judge. Laster v. Massanari, No. CA-99-226-1 (N.D.W.
    Va. Mar. 7, 2001).
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 01-1639

Judges: Wilkins, Luttig, King

Filed Date: 1/24/2002

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024