From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Atwood v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2014
564 F. App'x 25 (4th Cir. 2014)

Opinion

No. 13-2245

04-01-2014

PAUL D. ATWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee.

Paul D. Atwood, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Craig Ormson, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-01742-SAG) Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Paul D. Atwood, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland; Craig Ormson, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Paul D. Atwood appeals the magistrate judge's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of Atwood's application for disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. Atwood v. Comm'r, No. 1:11-cv-01742-SAG (D. Md. Aug. 21, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge.

AFFIRMED


Summaries of

Atwood v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 1, 2014
564 F. App'x 25 (4th Cir. 2014)
Case details for

Atwood v. Comm'r, Soc. Sec.

Case Details

Full title:PAUL D. ATWOOD, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 1, 2014

Citations

564 F. App'x 25 (4th Cir. 2014)

Citing Cases

Beacon v. Colvin

Moreover, and in any event, the ALJ in this case did not use the DSM-IV to "resolve any issue." See Atwood v.…