Filed: Feb. 25, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2821 _ Douglas W. Bean, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 22, 2011 Filed: February 25, 2011 _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Douglas W. Bean appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disabili
Summary: United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT _ No. 10-2821 _ Douglas W. Bean, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Western District of Arkansas. Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, * Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellee. * _ Submitted: February 22, 2011 Filed: February 25, 2011 _ Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. _ PER CURIAM. Douglas W. Bean appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of disabilit..
More
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
___________
No. 10-2821
___________
Douglas W. Bean, *
*
Appellant, *
* Appeal from the United States
v. * District Court for the
* Western District of Arkansas.
Michael J. Astrue, Commissioner, *
Social Security Administration, * [UNPUBLISHED]
*
Appellee. *
___________
Submitted: February 22, 2011
Filed: February 25, 2011
___________
Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
___________
PER CURIAM.
Douglas W. Bean appeals the district court’s1 order affirming the denial of
disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review,
see Van Vickle v. Astrue,
539 F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008), we find that the
administrative law judge’s credibility determination is entitled to deference, see
Halverson v. Astrue,
600 F.3d 922, 932 (8th Cir. 2010). We reject as meritless Bean’s
1
The Honorable James R. Marschewski, United States Magistrate Judge for the
Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by
consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
remaining arguments for reversal. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. See 8th
Cir. R. 47B.
______________________________
-2-