Samantha Watson v. Carolyn Colvin
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00212-KS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999656381].. [14-2093]
Appeal: 14-2093
Doc: 30
Filed: 09/09/2015
Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-2093
SAMANTHA P. WATSON,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington.
Kimberly A. Swank,
Magistrate Judge. (7:13-cv-00212-KS)
Submitted:
August 31, 2015
Decided:
September 9, 2015
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William
Lee
Davis,
III,
Lumberton,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R.A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, David N. Mervis,
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
Raleigh,
North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 14-2093
Doc: 30
Filed: 09/09/2015
Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Samantha
affirming
the
P.
benefits.
Watson
appeals
Commissioner’s
the
denial
district
of
disability
order
insurance
We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record
on appeal and find no reversible error. *
substantially
Watson
court’s
v.
for
the
Colvin,
reasons
No.
stated
Accordingly, we affirm
by
7:13-cv-00212-KS
the
district
(E.D.N.C.
court.
Sept.
18,
2014); see Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 566 (4th Cir. 2006)
(permitting
vocational
consideration
of
all
expert
other
testimony
evidence
in
“based
the
upon
record”
and
a
“in
response to proper hypothetical questions which fairly set out
all
of
omitted));
claimant’s
2005)
Johnson v.
(recognizing
supported
impairments”
by
Barnhart,
hypothetical
substantial
(internal
434
must
evidence).
F.3d
650,
include
We
quotation
659
only
dispense
(4th
marks
Cir.
impairments
with
oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
*
Watson has waived appellate review of her claims under
Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015). See In re Under
Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognizing issues
raised for first time on appeal generally will not be
considered); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597,
605-06 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing limitations on exception
based on intervening change in law).
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?