BLANKENSHIP v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 10-2213. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20110331090
Visitors: 8
Filed: Mar. 31, 2011
Latest Update: Mar. 31, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell E. Blankenship appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Blankenship 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) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart , 434
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Russell E. Blankenship appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Blankenship 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) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart , 434 F..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell E. Blankenship appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny Blankenship 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) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Blankenship v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:09-cv-01332-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 2010). 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.
Source: Leagle
