Case ID: f-appx_201/html/0345-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Allen F. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 06-5250.
    United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
    Oct. 19, 2006.
    Douglas T. Jenkins, Rogersville, TN, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Charles R. Goldstein, John Jay Lee, Julie Flanagan Coen, Office of the General Counsel, Loretta Simonetti Harber, Asst. U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Chicago, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.
    BEFORE: KEITH and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges; and CLELAND, District Judge.
    
    
      
       The Honorable Robert H. Cleland, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Allen F. Williams appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner of Social Security (the “Commissioner”), affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Williams’s application for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. The parties waived oral argument on appeal.

We “must affirm the Commissioner’s conclusions absent a determination that the Commissioner has failed to apply the correct legal standards or has made findings of fact unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Longworth v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 402 F.3d 591, 595 (6th Cir.2005) (citations omitted); see also 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (“The findings of the Commissioner of Social Security as to any fact, if supported by substantial evidence, shall be conclusive----”). Having carefully considered the record on appeal, the briefs of the parties, and the applicable law, we conclude that the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards in arriving at a decision supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm summary judgment for the Commissioner for the reasons stated more fully in the district court’s memorandum opinion filed on January 11, 2006.