Court Opinion

ID: 4124447
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-02-08 19:00:52.113597+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:24.261722
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
  
   *
  

  Plaintiff-Appellant David Michael West’s appearance before us constitutes at least the fourth time he has appealed the denial of his Social Security claim of disability: First, before the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”); second, before the Appeals Council; third, before both the Magistrate Judge and the United States District Court; and fourth before this court. We join the first three tribunals that denied West’s claim by affirming the judgment of the district court issued following its rife
  
   novo
  
  review of the entire case by affirming the final decision of the Commissioner based, as it was, on the ruling of the ALJ.
 

  We have painstakingly reviewed the parties’ contentions on appeal as set forth in their briefs, as well as West’s record excerpts and the carefully explicated Report and Recommendation of the United States magistrate judge; and we have independently reviewed the facts and the law to the extent of our authorization to do so. As a result, we are satisfied that the ALJ, the Appeals Council, the magistrate judge and the district judge uniformly and consistently “got it right” in their rejections of West’s Social Security claims. For the reasons patiently set forth by those who heard this case before we did, the Order of the district court affirming the Commissioner’s denial of West’s requested relief is, in all respects,
 

  AFFIRMED.
 

   *
  

   Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.