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)
08-1795•Stephen Andrew Carden v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security
08-1795Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitOct 22, 2010
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1795
STEPHEN ANDREW CARDEN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Mary E. Stanley,
Magistrate Judge. (2:07-cv-00025)
Submitted: September 23, 2010 Decided: October 22, 2010
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Greg R. Lord, THE LORD LAW FIRM, PLLC, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief
Counsel, Edward C. Tompsett, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Nora Koch, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Charles T. Miller, United States
Attorney, Carol A. Casto, Assistant United States Attorney,
Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen Andrew Carden appeals the magistrate judge’s*
order affirming the Commissioner’s decision denying Carden’s
application for supplemental security income. We have reviewed
the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm
for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Carden v.
Astrue, No. 2:07-cv-00025 (S.D. W. Va. Mar. 28, 2008). 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
* This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the
parties’ consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.