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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?