Case Name: April G. CORDELL, 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: 2007-02-14
Citations: 217 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 06-1803
Parties: April G. CORDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 217
Pages: 228–228

Head Matter:
April G. CORDELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Jo Anne B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 06-1803.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 14, 2007.
V. Lamar Gudger, III, Gudger & Gudger, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C.F. Shappert, United States Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Kavonne L. Mayeski, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
April G. Cordell appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's denial of 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 administrative record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. See Cordell v. Barnhart, No. 1:05-cv-00281 (W.D.N.C. May 19, 2006). 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 jurisdiction of the magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).