Blankenship v. Commissioner of Social Security ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2213
RUSSELL E. BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (9:09-cv-01332-RMG)
Submitted: March 23, 2011 Decided: March 31, 2011
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Russell E. Blankenship, Appellant Pro Se. Marvin Jennings
Caughman, Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Columbia, South Carolina, Jessica Milano, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Russell E. Blankenship appeals the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Blankenship 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 record and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Blankenship v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:09-cv-
01332-RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 22, 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