Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Monroe v. Commissioner, SSA, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daphney Monroe appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by the Social Security Administration. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's denial. On further appeal, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and that the correct law was applied. The court agreed with the lower courts that the administrative record supported the final decision to deny Monroe's claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Monroe v. Commissioner, SSA, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Daphney Monroe appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by the Social Security Administration. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's denial. On further appeal, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and that the correct law was applied. The court agreed with the lower courts that the administrative record supported the final decision to deny Monroe's claims.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-2222

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Daphney Monroe appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by the Social Security Administration. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's denial. On further appeal, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and that the correct law was applied. The court agreed with the lower courts that the administrative record supported the final decision to deny Monroe's claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Monroe v. Commissioner, SSA, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Daphney Monroe appealed the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income benefits by the Social Security Administration. The district court affirmed the Commissioner's denial. On further appeal, the Fourth Circuit also affirmed, finding that substantial evidence supported the denial of benefits and that the correct law was applied. The court agreed with the lower courts that the administrative record supported the final decision to deny Monroe's claims.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-2222

    DAPHNEY MONROE,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District


    District of North Carolina, at Durham.
    District Judge. (CA-04-231-1-JAB)

    Submitted:

    March 31, 2006

    Court for the Middle


    James A. Beaty, Jr.,

    Decided:

    April 26, 2006

    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Daphney Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.


    Karen Beth Burzycki, SOCIAL
    SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Daphney

    Monroe

    appeals

    the

    district

    courts

    order

    adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and


    affirming

    the

    Commissioners

    denial

    of

    disability

    insurance

    benefits and supplemental security income 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).

    Having thoroughly reviewed the administrative record, we

    agree with the district court that substantial evidence supports


    the Commissioners final decision.

    Accordingly, we affirm for the

    reasons stated by the district court.

    See Monroe v. Commissioner,

    No. CA-04-231-1-JAB (M.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 2005).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument


    would not aid the decisional process.

    AFFIRMED

    - 2 -

    You might also like