Charles A. Fields v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2389
CHARLES A. FIELDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Beaufort. Bristow Marchant, Magistrate
Judge. (9:09-cv-01763-BM)
Submitted: August 16, 2011 Decided: September 6, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel M. Price, Jr., Newberry, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South
Carolina; Robert L. Van Saghi, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, John Jay Lee, Regional Chief Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Charles A. Fields appeals the district court’s orders
affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Fields a period of
disability and disability insurance benefits and denying
Fields's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. We must uphold the decision
to deny benefits if it 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 record and find no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated
by the district court.* Fields v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. 9:09-cv-01763-BM (D.S.C. Oct. 5, 2010 & Aug. 20, 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
* We decline to consider Fields’s argument that the
Administrative Law Judge erred in extending his disability
determination to the date of the decision because the claim was
not presented to the district court and refusal to consider it
would not be plain error or result in a fundamental miscarriage
of justice. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th
Cir. 1993).

-- 2 of 2 --