Case Name: Charles K. LASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-01-24
Citations: 22 F. App'x 357
Docket Number: No. 01-1639
Parties: Charles K. LASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 22
Pages: 357–357

Head Matter:
Charles K. LASTER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry G. MASSANARI, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 01-1639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 21, 2001.
Decided Jan. 24, 2002.
Susan Kipp McLaughlin, McLaughlin & Curry, Fairmont, West Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief, Robert S. Drum, Assistant Regional, Office of the General, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Patrick M. Flatley, United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles K. Laster appeals the district court's order that, based upon a report and recommendation of a magistrate judge, upheld the Administrative Law Judge's denial of his claims for Social Security Disability benefits and Supplemental Security Income.
We must uphold the decision to deny disability benefits if the decision is supported by substantial evidence and the correct law was applied. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West Supp.2001); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.1996). We have reviewed the record and the district courts order and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court and the magistrate judge. Laster v. Massanari, No. CA-99-226-1 (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 7, 2001).
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.