Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Grayson v. Barnhart, 06-60514 (2006)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Number: 06-60514 Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 14, 2006
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60514 (Summary Calendar) _ DOROTHY N. GRAYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant versus JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (4:04-CV-176) - Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant
More
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS November 14, 2006 FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-60514 (Summary Calendar) _____________________ DOROTHY N. GRAYSON, Plaintiff-Appellant versus JO ANNE BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee --------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi (4:04-CV-176) --------------------- Before SMITH, WIENER and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-Appellant Dorothy N. Grayson (“Claimant”) appeals the ruling of the district court, grounded in its adoption of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, upholding the ruling of the Administrative Law Judge who denied Claimant’s application for disability and disability insurance benefits and for Supplemental Security Income under the Social Security Act. We have reviewed the outstanding briefs of counsel for Claimant and for the Commissioner, as well as the record on appeal, including * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. the cogent and exhaustive Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge that lies at the core of the district court’s denial of Claimant’s motion for summary judgment and grant of the Commissioner’s. Even though, as noted by the Magistrate Judge, this case is a close one, in the end we are convinced that the Administrative Law Judge, the Magistrate Judge, and the district court committed no error that supports reversal, in whole or in part, on appeal. For the reasons thoroughly explicated by the Magistrate Judge and adopted by the district court, the rulings appealed from are, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 2
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