Louis Keith Harris v. Commissioner of Soc Sec

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 2:11-cv-01590-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999179293].. [12-2409]

Appeal: 12-2409

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2409

LOUIS KEITH HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-01590-DCN)

Submitted:

August 20, 2013

Decided:

August 23, 2013

Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES, P.A.,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; John Jay Lee, Regional Chief
Counsel, Noah M. Schabacker, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-2409

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Louis Keith Harris appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner

of

Social

supplemental

security

Security’s

insurance

disability insurance benefits.

decision

benefits

to

deny

him

a

period

of

and

We have reviewed the record and

affirm.
Our

review

of

the

Commissioner’s

disability

determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law
was applied.
Cir.

2005)

See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th

(per

curiam)

(citing

42

U.S.C.

§

405(g)

(2006)).

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
(internal quotation marks omitted).
or

make

decision

credibility
is

conflicting

evidence

We do not reweigh evidence

determinations

supported

by

allows

Id.

in

evaluating

substantial
reasonable

defer to the Commissioner’s decision.

whether

evidence;

minds

to

a

“[w]here

differ,”

we

Id. (internal quotation

marks omitted).
Harris claims (1) that the magistrate judge erred in
restricting

his

petition

solely

district

court

review
to

the

should

after

the

second

issue

of

have

remanded
2

remand

credibility;
the

of

(2)
case

Harris’s
that

the

for

the

Appeal: 12-2409

Doc: 30

Filed: 08/23/2013

Pg: 3 of 3

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to consider the opinion of Dr.
Holford,

which

was

acquired

only

after

the

conclusion

of

administrative proceedings; and (3) that the ALJ’s credibility
findings with respect to the degree of pain suffered by Harris
are

both

Having

unclear

reviewed

and

each

unsupported
of

Harris’

by

substantial

arguments

in

evidence.

light

of

the

record, we conclude that none of them suffices to disturb the
ALJ’s denial of benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3