Filed: Jul. 21, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2128 CONNIE J. LAISHLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Maurice G. Taylor, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00714) Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-2128 CONNIE J. LAISHLEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Maurice G. Taylor, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00714) Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-2128
CONNIE J. LAISHLEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Maurice G. Taylor, Jr.,
Magistrate Judge. (3:05-cv-00714)
Submitted: April 30, 2008 Decided: July 21, 2008
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Connie J. Laishley, Appellant Pro Se. Heather Benderson, Michael
McGaughran, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Kelly Rixner Curry, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Connie J. Laishley appeals the magistrate judge’s order
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income.* 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 magistrate
judge. See Laishley v. Astrue, No. 3:05-cv-00714 (S.D. W. Va.
Sept. 4, 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
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
2