U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2008

Quesenberry v. Astrue

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided September 12, 2008 · Motz, King, Hamilton

293 F. App'x 221

Counsel

Deborah K. Garton, Hensley, Muth, Garton & Hayes, Bluefield, West Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Sara Bugbee Winn, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Michael McGaughran, Regional Chief Counsel, Region III, William Reeser, Supervisory Attorney, Michelle Scotese, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Office of the General Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Thomas E. Quesenberry appeals the magistrate judge’s order affirming the Commissioner’s decision to deny Quesenberry 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) (2000); Craig v. Chater, 76 F.3d 585, 589 (4th Cir. 1996). 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 Quesenberry v. Astrue, No. l:06-cv-00116-pms, 2007 WL 2965042 (W.D.Va. Oct. 10, 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.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).

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