Kenneth Dickerson, Sr. v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999766264]. [15-1564]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-1564 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 4 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1564 KENNETH M. DICKERSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael L. Henry, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. Appeal: 15-1564 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 4 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 Appeal: 15-1564 Doc: 25 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 4 PER CURIAM: Kenneth M. Dickerson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Dickerson’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Cir. 2015). Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th “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; “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Against parties’ this briefs, framework, the we have administrative thoroughly record, appendix, and we discern no reversible error. affirm the district court’s judgment. reviewed and the the joint Accordingly, we Dickerson v. Colvin, No. 1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2015). We dispense with oral contentions argument because the facts 3 and legal are Appeal: 15-1564 Doc: 25 adequately Filed: 03/02/2016 presented in the Pg: 4 of 4 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 4

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?