Charles Fields v. Commissioner of Social Sec, No. 10-2389 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Unpublished opinion after submission on briefs: Affirmed
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-2389 CHARLES A. FIELDS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 Fields's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion. benefits and denying 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. ยง 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). dispense with oral argument because the facts and We 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
