Case Name: Priscilla EVERETTE, as personal representative of the estate of Maggie Everette, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-13
Citations: 131 F. App'x 412
Docket Number: No. 04-2422
Parties: Priscilla EVERETTE, as personal representative of the estate of Maggie Everette, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 412–413

Head Matter:
Priscilla EVERETTE, as personal representative of the estate of Maggie Everette, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 04-2422.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 11, 2005.
Decided: May 13, 2005.
Priscilla Everette, Appellant pro se.
Barbara Dickerson Kocher, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Priscilla Everette, personal representative of the estate of Maggie Everette, appeals the district court's order granting the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration's ("Commissioner") motion for judgment on the pleadings and affirming the Commissioner's denial of disability insurance benefits, widow's insurance benefits, and supplemental security income benefits to Maggie Everette prior to 1987. 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). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's final decision denying benefits. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Everette v. Barnhart, No. CA-02-48H (E.D.N.C. Sept. 8, 2004). 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