Case Name: Kenneth M. CASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee, and Social Security Administrative Record, Party in Interest
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-11
Citations: 292 F. App'x 258
Docket Number: No. 08-1018
Parties: Kenneth M. CASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant— Appellee, and Social Security Administrative Record, Party in Interest.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 292
Pages: 258–258

Head Matter:
Kenneth M. CASE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant— Appellee, and Social Security Administrative Record, Party in Interest.
No. 08-1018.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 31, 2008.
Decided: Sept. 11, 2008.
Richard J. Paul, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Kevin F. McDonald, Acting United States Attorney, Marvin J. Caughman, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Robert L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Deana R. Ertl-Lombardi, Regional Chief Counsel, Yvette G. Keesee, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas S. Inman, Assistant Regional Counsel, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth M. Case appeals the magistrate judge's order affirming the Commissioner's decision to deny 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 parties' briefs, administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm. See Case v. Astrue, No. 8:06-cv-02293-BHH (D.S.C. Oct. 1, 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).