Kelvin Devaughn Watson v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00205-SAG Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999528966].. [14-1254]

Appeal: 14-1254

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1254

KELVIN DEVAUGHN WATSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:13-cv-00205-SAG)

Submitted:

November 25, 2014

Decided:

February 13, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcia E. Anderson, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA E. ANDERSON, LLC, Mount
Airy, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1254

Doc: 32

Filed: 02/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Devaughn Watson appeals the magistrate judge’s order
upholding

the

Commissioner’s

denial

of

disability

benefits and supplemental security income. ∗

insurance

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

evidence

as

a

reasonable

mind

might

accept

as

adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).

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

the

conflicting

as

to

whether

Commissioner’s

evidence
a

allows

claimant

decision.

is
Id.

(internal quotation marks omitted).
Against
parties’

this

briefs,

framework,
the

we

have

administrative

thoroughly
record,

appendix, and we discern no reversible error.

reviewed

and

the

the

joint

Accordingly, we

affirm substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.
Watson v. Colvin, No. 1:13–cv–00205–SAG (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2014).

∗

The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

2

Appeal: 14-1254

We

Doc: 32

dispense

contentions

Filed: 02/13/2015

with
are

Pg: 3 of 3

oral

because

argument

adequately

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3