Filed: Nov. 18, 2008
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1716 MONICA M. TAYLOR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00307-HEH) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-1716 MONICA M. TAYLOR, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00307-HEH) Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD,..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1716
MONICA M. TAYLOR,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:07-cv-00307-HEH)
Submitted: November 13, 2008 Decided: November 18, 2008
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monica M. Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Holland Hambrick,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Monica M. Taylor appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and affirming
the Commissioner’s denial of Taylor’s applications for
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income.
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.A. § 405(g) (West Supp.
2008); 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. See Taylor v. Astrue, No. 3:07-cv-00307-HEH
(E.D. Va. Apr. 23, 2008). 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