Filed: Sep. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1662 BRENDA K. MONK, V.A.M., Child, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cv-00073-JLK) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1662 BRENDA K. MONK, V.A.M., Child, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cv-00073-JLK) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per ..
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-1662 BRENDA K. MONK, V.A.M., Child, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Danville. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior District Judge. (4:06-cv-00073-JLK) Submitted: August 30, 2007 Decided: September 5, 2007 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brenda K. Monk, Appellant Pro Se. Sara Bugbee Winn, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brenda K. Monk appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s decision to deny Monk’s claim for continued Supplemental Security Income benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Monk v. Astrue, No. 4:06-cv- 00073-JLK (W.D. Va. July 3, 2007). 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 -
