Nia Sheridan v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999986573].. [16-1289]

Appeal: 16-1289

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/14/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1289

NIA SHERIDAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH)

Submitted:

November 30, 2016

Decided:

December 14, 2016

Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E.
BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant.
Jill
Westmoreland
Rose,
United
States
Attorney,
Paul
Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1289

Doc: 17

Filed: 12/14/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Nia Sheridan appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

and

upholding

the

Commissioner’s denial of Sheridan’s application for 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.

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.

Sheridan v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28,
2016).
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 16-1289

before

Doc: 17

this

court

Filed: 12/14/2016

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
AFFIRMED

3