Geneva Livingston v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00501-WO-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999656406].. [14-2189]

Appeal: 14-2189

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/09/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2189

GENEVA B. LIVINGSTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00501-WO-JEP)

Submitted:

August 28, 2015

Decided:

September 9, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William
Lee
Davis,
III,
Lumberton,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Greensboro,
North Carolina; Sarah Choi, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-2189

Doc: 29

Filed: 09/09/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Geneva

B.

Livingston

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Livingston’s application
for disability benefits and supplemental security income.
review

of

evaluating

the

Commissioner’s

whether

the

determination

findings

are

is

supported

by

evidence and whether the correct law was applied.
Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015).

limited

Our
to

substantial

See Mascio v.

We have thoroughly

reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the
joint

appendix,

Accordingly,

we

Livingston

v.

(M.D.N.C.

Sept.

and

we

affirm

Colvin,
29,

No.

2014).

discern
the

no

district

1:11-cv-00501,
We

dispense

reversible
court’s
2014
with

error.
judgment.

WL

4850447

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

2