Thomas E. Quesenberry v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1120
THOMAS E. QUESENBERRY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Abingdon. Pamela Meade Sargent,
Magistrate Judge. (1:06-cv-00116-pms)
Submitted: August 28, 2008 Decided: September 12, 2008
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Deborah K. Garton, HENSLEY, MUTH, GARTON & HAYES, Bluefield, West
Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney,
Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,
Virginia; Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III,
William Reeser, Supervisory Attorney, Michelle Scotese, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration,
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

*The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate
judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas E. Quesenberry appeals the magistrate judge’s
order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Quesenberry 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) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir.
1996). 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 Quesenberry v. Astrue, No. 1:06-cv-00116-pms (W.D. Va. Oct. 10,
2007). 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 --