The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
06-1803•April G. Cordell v. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North Carolina, for
06-1803Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 14, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-1803
APRIL G. CORDELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
JO ANNE B. BARNHART, Commissioner of Social
Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Dennis L. Howell,
Magistrate Judge. (1:05-cv-00281)
Submitted: January 31, 2007 Decided: February 14, 2007
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
V. Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Gretchen C. F. Shappert, United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North
Carolina, Robert J. Triba, Chief Regional Counsel, Kavonne L.
Mayeski, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston,
Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
*The parties consented to jurisdiction of the magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
April G. Cordell appeals the magistrate judge’s order*
affirming the Commissioner’s denial of 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 administrative record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons
stated by the magistrate judge. See Cordell v. Barnhart, No. 1:05-
cv-00281 (W.D.N.C. May 19, 2006). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.