U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2004

Herron v. Commissioner

Herron v. Commissioner
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided February 10, 2004

Herron v. Commissioner

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-1892

MARY R. HERRON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, District Judge. (CA-02-60-2)

Submitted: December 24, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger W. Rutherford, WOLFE, WILLIAMS, RUTHERFORD, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. James A. Winn, Regional Chief Counsel, Patricia M.

Smith, Deputy Chief Counsel, Shawn C. Carver, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; James L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Julie C.

Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Mary R. Herron appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of social security disability and supplemental security income benefits. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error.

We must uphold the Commissioner’s disability determination if it is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2000); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s final decision denying disability benefits.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Herron v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. CA-02-60-2 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2003). 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 -

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.