Moon v. Barnhart , 212 F. App'x 305 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                                                          United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS         January 3, 2007
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 06-10860
    Summary Calendar
    CAROL L. MOON,
    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-0203
    --------------------
    Before DeMOSS, STEWART and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Carol L. Moon (“Moon”) filed a claim under the Social
    Security Act for Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”).        The
    Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) denied Moon’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, Moon filed suit in the district
    court for the Northern District of Texas seeking judicial review
    of the Commissioner’s decision.     The case was referred to a
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
    Magistrate Judge for Report and Recommendation, and the
    Magistrate Judge recommended that Moon’s petition for review be
    denied.   Moon filed objections to the Magistrate’s Report and the
    district court, after review of Moon’s objections, adopted the
    Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and entered final
    judgment denying any relief to Moon.   Moon 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 Moon.
    AFFIRMED.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-10860

Citation Numbers: 212 F. App'x 305

Judges: DeMOSS, Per Curiam, Prado, Stewart

Filed Date: 1/3/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024