Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Roberts v. Astrue, 09-1467 (2010)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 09-1467 Visitors: 50
Filed: Jun. 14, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1467 JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:07-cv-03417-HMH) Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpub
More
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-1467 JOSEPH M. ROBERTS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (9:07-cv-03417-HMH) Submitted: May 24, 2010 Decided: June 14, 2010 Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., LAW OFFICES OF ROBERTSON WENDT, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. W. Walter Wilkins, United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Michael A. Thomas, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Donna L. Calvert, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Gary Sultz, Assistant Regional Counsel, Sandra T. Krider, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Office of the General Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Joseph M. Roberts appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Roberts’ applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Roberts v. Astrue, No. 9:07-cv-03417-HMH (D.S.C. Feb. 20, 2009). 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 3
Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer