Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01018/USCOURTS-ca4-08-01018-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael J. Astrue
Appellee
Kenneth M. Case
Appellant
Social Security Administrative Record

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1018

KENNETH M. CASE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD,

Party in Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Anderson. Bruce H. Hendricks, Magistrate Judge.

(8:06-cv-02293-BHH)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: September 11, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard J. Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin

F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert

L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R.

Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy

Appeal: 08-1018 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/11/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional

Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-1018 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/11/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate

judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth M. Case appeals the magistrate judge’s order

affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny 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) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.

1996). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs,

administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint

appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm.

See Case v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-02293-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 2007).

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

Appeal: 08-1018 Doc: 22 Filed: 09/11/2008 Pg: 3 of 3