Cortinez v. Barnhart , 214 F. App'x 462 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         January 22, 2007
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT             Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-10880
    Summary Calendar
    SYLVIA S. CORTINEZ,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas, Amarillo Division
    USDC No. 2:03-CV-0156
    --------------------
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Sylvia S. Cortinez (“Cortinez”) filed a claim under the
    Social Security Act for Disability Insurance Benefits and
    Supplemental Security Income.     The Administrative Law Judge
    (“ALJ”) denied Cortinez’s claim and the Appeals Council affirmed
    the decision of the ALJ.     Treating the decision of the Appeals
    Council as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social
    Security, Cortinez filed suit in the district court for the
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
    except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
    R. 47.5.4.
    Northern District of Texas seeking judicial review of the
    Commissioner’s decision.   The case was referred to a Magistrate
    Judge for Report and Recommendation, and the Magistrate Judge
    recommended that Cortinez’s petition for review be denied.    The
    district court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
    Recommendation and entered final judgment denying any relief to
    Cortinez.   Cortinez appeals to this Court.
    Our review is limited to determining (1) whether there is
    substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the
    Commissioner’s decision, and (2) whether the Commissioner’s
    decision comports with relevant legal standards.   Jones v. Apfel,
    
    174 F.3d 692
    , 693 (5th Cir. 1999).   We have carefully reviewed
    the briefs, record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record
    itself.   For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge’s Report
    and Recommendation, as adopted by the district court, we affirm
    the decision of the district court to enter final judgment
    against Cortinez.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-10880

Citation Numbers: 214 F. App'x 462

Judges: Demoss, Stewart, Prado

Filed Date: 1/22/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024