Filed: Mar. 28, 2005
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2287 SALIL V. DESAI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-93) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opini
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-2287 SALIL V. DESAI, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CA-03-93) Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinio..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-2287
SALIL V. DESAI,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL
SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (CA-03-93)
Submitted: February 28, 2005 Decided: March 28, 2005
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Salil V. Desai, Appellant Pro Se. Dino Lucio Trubiano, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Salil V. Desai appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision denying
Social Security Disability and Supplemental Security Income
benefits. We must uphold the district court’s disability
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 on the reasoning of the
district court. Desai v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-
03-93 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2004). 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 -