Court Opinion

ID: 9955297
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-28 00:00:43.122214+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:26.553068
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50638           Document: 39-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 03/27/2024

          United States Court of Appeals
               for the Fifth Circuit
                                  ____________
                                                                            United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                     Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 23-50638
                                  ____________                                     FILED
                                                                             March 27, 2024
San Juana Lopez Castillo,                                                     Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                                   Clerk
                                                                 Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                         versus

Martin O’Malley, Commissioner of Social Security,

                                            Defendant—Appellee.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 3:22-CV-451
                  ______________________________

Before Jones, Southwick, and Ho, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
      San Juana Lopez Castillo appeals the denial of disability benefits. She
argues that she was prejudiced when an Administrative Law Judge
prematurely closed the record in her case. Because we find that the district
court correctly identified and applied governing law, and that no arguments
on appeal warrant further analysis than what the district court already
performed, we summarily affirm the judgment. See 5th Cir. R. 47.6.

      _____________________
      *
          This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.