Robert McCormick v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:13-cv-00234-RJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999809209].. [15-1467]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1467 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1467 ROBERT J. MCCORMICK, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Robert B. Jones, Jr., Magistrate Judge. (7:13-cv-00234-RJ) Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: May 2, 2016 Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, Elisa F. Donohoe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-1467 Doc: 25 Filed: 05/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Robert J. McCormick appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of McCormick’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. review of evaluating the Commissioner’s whether the determination findings are is supported Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. limited by evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Our to substantial See Mascio v. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (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. affirm for the reasons stated ∗ by the reviewed and the joint Accordingly, we magistrate The parties consented to the jurisdiction magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2 the judge. ∗ of the Appeal: 15-1467 Doc: 25 McCormick 2015). legal before v. Filed: 05/02/2016 Colvin, No. Pg: 3 of 3 7:13-cv-00234-RJ (E.D.N.C. Mar. 31, We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?