Stofa v. Astrue, No. 08-50158 (5th Cir. 2008)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit FILED July 24, 2008 No. 08-50158 Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk JOHN B. STOFA, JR. Plaintiff - Appellant v. MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY Defendant - Appellee Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio (5:07-CV-332) Before WIENER, GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* In this social security case, Plaintiff-Appellant John B. Stofa, Jr. contends that the determination of the Administrative Law Judge ( ALJ ) that Stofa is not disabled, as affirmed by the United States Magistrate Judge before whom this matter was heard in the district court by consent of the parties, should be reversed and remanded for award of benefits or additional administrative * 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. 08-50158 proceedings. Stofa urges that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the ALJ s finding or the magistrate judge s affirmance of the ruling of the ALJ. We have reviewed the entire record on appeal, and considered it in light of the law and facts as presented therein and in the briefs of counsel for the parties, giving particular attention to the patiently exhaustive Memorandum Decision and Order signed and entered on December 18, 2007 by the magistrate judge, on the basis of which the district court s final judgment was entered and filed on February 4, 2008, affirming the decision of the Commissioner and denying Stofa the relief he sought. For essentially the same reasons set forth by the magistrate judge in her Memorandum Decision and Order, the ruling of the district court affirming the ALJ and the order of the Commissioner is, in all respects, AFFIRMED. 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.
