Annmarie Serem v. Commissioner, Soc Sec

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-02705-JMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999762969].. [15-1518]

Appeal: 15-1518

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1518

ANNMARIE SEREM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken.
J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02705-JMC)

Submitted:

January 28, 2016

Before AGEE and
Circuit Judge.

DIAZ,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

February 26, 2016

HAMILTON,

Senior

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES, P.A.,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant.
William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Molly E.
Carter,
Special
Assistant
United
States
Attorney,
SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-1518

Doc: 24

Filed: 02/26/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Annmarie Serem appeals the district court’s order accepting
the

magistrate

Commissioner’s
insurance

judge’s
denial

benefits.

recommendation
of

her

Our

and

application

review

of

the

upholding
for

the

disability

Commissioner’s

determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law
was applied.
2015).

See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir.

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the

administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no
reversible error.
judgment.
02705-JMC

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

Serem v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv(D.S.C.

Mar.

30,

2015).

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