Kenneth Dickerson, Sr. v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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