Case Name: Mary R. HERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-10
Citations: 86 F. App'x 661
Docket Number: No. 03-1892
Parties: Mary R. HERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DefendantAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 661–661

Head Matter:
Mary R. HERRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, DefendantAppellee.
No. 03-1892.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 24, 2003.
Decided Feb. 10, 2004.
Roger W. Rutherford, Wolfe, Williams, Rutherford, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M. Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; James L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, 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Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Mary R. Herron appeals the district court's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error.
We must uphold the Commissioner's disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir.1990). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's final decision denying disability benefits. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Herron v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-02-60-2 (W.D.Va. June 19, 2003). 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