Maggie Woods v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00220-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999976891].. [16-1151]

Appeal: 16-1151

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1151

MAGGIE JANE WOODS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00220-D)

Submitted:

November 18, 2016

Decided:

November 29, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William
Lee
Davis,
III,
Lumberton,
North
Carolina,
for
Appellant.
Andy Liu, General Counsel, Daniel Callahan, Deputy
General Counsel, Jeffrey Blair, Associate General Counsel, John
Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Mark J. Goldenberg,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1151

Doc: 24

Filed: 11/29/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Maggie

Jane

Woods

appeals

the

district

court’s

order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s

denial

security income.

of

Woods’

application

for

supplemental

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.

Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2012).

“Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a

reasonable

mind

conclusion.”

might

accept

as

adequate

support

a

Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir.

2012) (internal quotation marks omitted).
analysis,

to

we

may

not

“reweigh

In conducting this

conflicting

evidence,

make

credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that
of the [administrative law judge].”

Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d

288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Within

this

framework,

we

have

thoroughly

reviewed

the

record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible
error.

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Woods v. Colvin, No. 7:14-cv-00220-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016).
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2