Filed: Apr. 09, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2427 MELVIN J. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-127-H) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curia
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-2427 MELVIN J. MOODY, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-127-H) Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-2427
MELVIN J. MOODY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-127-H)
Submitted: March 7, 2007 Decided: April 9, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Frank D. Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne M. Hayes, R. A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Melvin J. Moody appeals the district court’s order and
judgment affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying disability
insurance benefits and Social Security Income payments. 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 thoroughly reviewed the administrative record and
the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Moody v.
Barnhart, No. CA-04-127-H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 13, 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 -