Case Name: Tamilla L. Barnard RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-17
Citations: 281 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 07-1750
Parties: Tamilla L. Barnard RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 281
Pages: 212–213

Head Matter:
Tamilla L. Barnard RAMSEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 07-1750.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2008.
Decided: June 17, 2008.
V. Lamar Gudger, III, Gudger & Gudger, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Ap pellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Region I, Jason W. Valencia, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Tamilla L. Bernard Ramsey appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny 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. Chafer, 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 Ramsey v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-00234-DLH (W.D.N.C. June 2, 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.
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).