Robert McCormick v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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