Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-1639
    THERMAN JONES,
    Plaintiff – Appellant,
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00590-RLW)
    Submitted:   February 10, 2011             Decided:   March 3, 2011
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles Henry Cuthbert, Jr., CUTHBERT LAW OFFICES, Petersburg,
    Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel,
    Brian O’Donnell, Supervisory Attorney, Jillian Kipp, Assistant
    Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
    Pennsylvania; Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robin
    Perrin Meier, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Therman      Jones     appeals       the    district       court’s      order
    affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Jones a period of
    disability and disability insurance benefits.                        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) (2006); Johnson v. Barnhart, 
    434 F.3d 650
    , 653
    (4th Cir. 2005) (per curiam).             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    Jones       v.   Comm’r    of    Soc.    Sec.,
    No. 3:09-cv-00590-RLW (E.D. Va. June 3, 2010).                      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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-1639

Filed Date: 3/3/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021