Irene Hitchens v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00040-FL. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999726139]. [15-1066]

Appeal: 15-1066

Doc: 40

Filed: 12/29/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1066

IRENE HITCHENS,
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. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00040-FL)

Submitted:

November 30, 2015

Decided:

December 29, 2015

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-1066

Doc: 40

Filed: 12/29/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Irene Hitchens appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

and

upholding

the

Commissioner’s denial of Hitchens’ applications for disability
benefits and supplemental security income.
Commissioner’s

Our review of the

determination is limited to evaluating whether

the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether
the correct law was applied.

See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d

632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015).
We

have

thoroughly

reviewed

the

parties’

briefs,

the

administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no
reversible error.
judgment.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

Hitchens v. Colvin, No. 7:13-cv-00040-FL (E.D.N.C.

Dec. 9, 2014).

We dispense 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

2