Filed: Aug. 17, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1229 CLARENCE E. GRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-4054-0-25) Submitted: August 1, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished p
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1229 CLARENCE E. GRICE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge. (CA-03-4054-0-25) Submitted: August 1, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished pe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-1229
CLARENCE E. GRICE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-03-4054-0-25)
Submitted: August 1, 2005 Decided: August 17, 2005
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Clarence E. Grice, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Ridgell-Boltz, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Clarence E. Grice appeals the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration’s
denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income 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 reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the district court. See Grice v. Barnhart, No. CA-03-
4054-0-25 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 2005). 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 -