Reid v. Barnhart, No. 06-30179 (5th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D September 13, 2006 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-30179 Summary Calendar MICHAEL S. REID, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus JO ANNE B. BARNHART, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant-Appellee. -------------------Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:03-CV-2254 -------------------Before DeMOSS, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Michael S. Reid ( Reid ) filed a claim under the Social Security Act for Disability Insurance Benefits ( DIB ) and for Supplemental Security Income ( SSI ). The Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) denied Reid s claim and the Appeals Council affirmed the decision of the ALJ. Treating the decision of the Appeals Council as the final decision of the Commissioner of Social Security, Reid filed suit in the district court for the Western District of Louisiana seeking judicial review of the Commissioner s decision. * The case was referred to the Magistrate Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. No. 06-30179 -2Judge for report and recommendation, and the Magistrate Judge recommended that Reid s petition for review be denied. Reid filed objections to the Magistrate s Report and the district court, after review of Reid s objections, adopted the Magistrate Judge s Report and Recommendation and entered final judgment denying any relief to Reid. Reid appeals to this Court. We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated in the Magistrate Judge s Report, as adopted by the district court, we affirm the decision of the district court to enter final judgment against Reid. AFFIRMED.

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.