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)
10-1639•Therman Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security
10-1639Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitMar 3, 2011
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-1639
THERMAN JONES,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cv-00590-RLW)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: March 3, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Henry Cuthbert, Jr., CUTHBERT LAW OFFICES, Petersburg,
Virginia, for Appellant. Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel,
Brian O’Donnell, Supervisory Attorney, Jillian Kipp, Assistant
Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, Robin
Perrin Meier, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Therman Jones appeals the district court’s order
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Jones 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
parties’ briefs, administrative record, and the materials
submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error.
Accordingly, we affirm. See Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.,
No. 3:09-cv-00590-RLW (E.D. Va. June 3, 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.