Nathan Woods v. Andrew Saul, No. 19-1215 (8th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Per Curiam - Before Loken, Wollman and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Social Security. Substantial evidence supported the agency's determination that claimant's condition was not disabling; the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying claimant's request for appointment of counsel or his motion for recusal. [ October 21, 2019
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-1215 ___________________________ Nathan Gale Woods lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellant v. Andrew Saul, Commissioner, Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri - St. Joseph ____________ Submitted: October 17, 2019 Filed: October 22, 2019 [Unpublished] ____________ Before LOKEN, WOLLMAN, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Nathan Gale Woods appeals the district court’s1 affirmance of a decision denying him disability insurance benefits and supplement security income. We find 1 The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. that substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) determination that Woods’s speech apraxia was not disabling. See Gann v. Berryhill, 864 F.3d 947, 950-51 (8th Cir. 2017) (reviewing de novo district court’s decision affirming denial of benefits; where substantial evidence on record as whole supports ALJ’s decision, this court will affirm).2 We also find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Woods’s requests for counsel, see Patterson v. Kelley, 902 F.3d 845, 849-50 (8th Cir. 2018) (pro se litigants have no constitutional or statutory right to counsel in civil case; summarizing relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be appointed); or in the court’s denial of Woods’s request for recusal, see Dossett v. First State Bank, 399 F.3d 940, 953 (8th Cir. 2005) (adverse judicial rulings rarely constitute valid basis for recusal). The judgment is affirmed. ______________________________ 2 On appeal, Woods does not address the other impairments he identified as disabling. See Hacker v. Barnhart, 459 F.3d 934, 937 n.2 (8th Cir. 2006) (abandonment of issue). -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.
