Filed: Feb. 13, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2332 WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-43-2) Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2332 WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (CA-04-43-2) Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2332
WILLIAM C. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-43-2)
Submitted: February 3, 2006 Decided: February 13, 2006
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William C. Thompson, Appellant Pro Se. Rafael Melendez, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William C. Thompson appeals the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to the Commissioner and affirming the
Commissioner’s denial of 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 reviewed the record and find no reversible error or
abuse of discretion. Accordingly, we affirm the order on the
reasoning of the district court. See Thompson v. Commissioner,
Soc. Sec. Admin., No. CA-04-43-2 (W.D. Va. Sept. 25, 2005). We
also deny Thompson’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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 -