Filed: Aug. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1338 DARRYL W. STEVENS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 25, 2011 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unp
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-1338 DARRYL W. STEVENS, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu) Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 25, 2011 Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-1338
DARRYL W. STEVENS,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu)
Submitted: August 18, 2011 Decided: August 25, 2011
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darryl W. Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth DiVito, Amanda
Reinitz, Assistant Regional Counsels, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darryl W. Stevens appeals the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Stevens a period
of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security
income. 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) (2006); Johnson v.
Barnhart,
434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam). We
have thoroughly reviewed the record and find no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the
district court. Stevens v. Astrue, No. 6:09-cv-00041-nkm-mfu
(E.D. Va. Feb. 8, 2011). 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