Quesenberry v. Astrue ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-1120
    THOMAS E. QUESENBERRY,
    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 Abingdon.     Pamela Meade Sargent,
    Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00116-pms)
    Submitted:   August 28, 2008             Decided:   September 12, 2008
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Deborah K. Garton, HENSLEY, MUTH, GARTON & HAYES, Bluefield, West
    Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,
    Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
    Virginia; Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,
    William Reeser, Supervisory Attorney, Michelle Scotese, Special
    Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration,
    OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Thomas E. Quesenberry appeals the magistrate judge’s
    order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Quesenberry a
    period of disability and disability insurance benefits.*        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, 
    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 Quesenberry v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-00116-pms (W.D. Va. Oct. 10,
    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.
    AFFIRMED
    *
    The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
    judge in accordance with 
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (c) (2000).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-1120

Judges: Motz, King, Hamilton

Filed Date: 9/12/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024