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)
07-1267•Thomas H. Richards v. Social Security Commission
07-1267Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 10, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-1267
THOMAS H. RICHARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMISSION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Irene M. Keeley, Chief
District Judge. (3:05-cv-00084-IMK)
Submitted: September 24, 2007 Decided: October 10, 2007
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Regina L. Carpenter, MCLAUGHLIN & CARPENTER, Fairmont, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief
Counsel, Dina White Griffin, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, William B. Reeser, Supervisory Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Thomas E. Johnston,
United States Attorney, Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Assistant United
Sates Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Thomas H. Richards appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the
Commissioner’s denial of 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 administrative record and
the parties’ briefs and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm. See Richards v. Soc. Sec. Comm’n, No. 3:05-cv-00084-IMK
(N.D.W. Va. Jan. 19, 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 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.