Josephine Harris v. Commissioner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-01516-SAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999160732]. Mailed to: Josephine Harris. [13-1276]

Appeal: 13-1276

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1276

JOSEPHINE HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:11-cv-01516-SAG)

Submitted:

July 25, 2013

Decided: July 29, 2013

Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephine Harris, Appellant Pro Se.
Alex Gordon, Assistant
United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-1276

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/29/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Josephine Harris appeals the magistrate judge’s order
upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny
her

disability

insurance

benefits. *

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.

See Johnson v. Barnhart,

434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005).

“Substantial evidence is

such

relevant

adequate

to

evidence

support

marks omitted).

a

as

a

reasonable

conclusion.”

mind

Id.

might

accept

(internal

as

quotation

We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility

determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by
substantial

evidence;

reasonable

minds

disabled,”

we

to

defer

“[w]here
differ
to

conflicting

as

the

to

evidence

whether

Commissioner’s

a

allows

claimant

decision.

is
Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
With

this

framework

in

mind,

record and find no reversible error.
magistrate

judge’s

order.

Harris

we

have

reviewed

the

Accordingly, we affirm the
v.

Comm’r,

Soc.

Sec.,

No.

1:11-cv-01516-SAG (D. Md. filed Feb. 6, 2013 & entered Feb. 7,
2013).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

*

The parties consented to the jurisdiction
magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).

2

of

the

Appeal: 13-1276

legal
before

Doc: 6

Filed: 07/29/2013

contentions
this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3