Filed: Apr. 26, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2222 DAPHNEY MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-231-1-JAB) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daphney M
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2222 DAPHNEY MONROE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., District Judge. (CA-04-231-1-JAB) Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daphney Mo..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2222
DAPHNEY MONROE,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-231-1-JAB)
Submitted: March 31, 2006 Decided: April 26, 2006
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daphney Monroe, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Beth Burzycki, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Daphney Monroe appeals the district court’s order
adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and
affirming the Commissioner’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). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we
agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports
the Commissioner’s final decision. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. See Monroe v. Commissioner,
No. CA-04-231-1-JAB (M.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 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 -