Filed: May 03, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1349 JAMES SHANNON DOBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-01-376) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Shan
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-1349 JAMES SHANNON DOBY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District Judge. (CA-01-376) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Shann..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-1349
JAMES SHANNON DOBY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-01-376)
Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 3, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Shannon Doby, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Gail Smoller, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
James Shannon Doby appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the
Commissioner’s denial of certain social security benefits. We must
uphold the district court’s determination 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 the district
court’s order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the district court. See Doby v.
Barnhart, No. CA-01-376 (M.D.N.C. Jan. 21, 2003). 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 -