Tammy Campbell v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:12-cv-00623-JAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999421125].. [13-2436]

Appeal: 13-2436

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-2436

TAMMY CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Administration,

Acting

Commissioner,

Social

Security

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00623-JAG)

Submitted:

July 31, 2014

Decided:

August 22, 2014

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora
Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory
Attorney, Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-2436

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tammy
adopting

the

Campbell

appeals

magistrate

judge’s

the

district

recommendation

court’s
to

order

uphold

the

Commissioner’s denial of Campbell’s application for 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.
Cir. 2005).
a

See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as

reasonable

conclusion.”
reweigh

mind

accept

as

adequate

to

support

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).

evidence

evaluating

might

or

whether

a

make

credibility

decision

is

We do not

determinations

supported

by

a

in

substantial

evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds
to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the
Commissioner’s

decision.

Id.

(internal

quotation

marks

omitted).
Against

this

framework,

we

have

thoroughly

reviewed

the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint
appendix, and we discern no reversible error.

Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

Campbell

v. Colvin, No. 3:12-cv-00623-JAG (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2013).
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-2436

Doc: 29

Filed: 08/22/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

3