Johnny Brown v. Commissioner of SSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-04566-TMC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999965998].. [16-1300]

Appeal: 16-1300

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1300

JOHNNY RODNEY BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-04566-TMC)

Submitted:

October 31, 2016

Decided:

November 10, 2016

Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin,
for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn
Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Patricia M. Smith, Assistant
Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Barbara
Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1300

Doc: 23

Filed: 11/10/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Johnny
accepting

Rodney

the

Brown

magistrate

appeals

the

judge’s

district

court’s

recommendation

and

order

upholding

the Commissioner’s denial of Brown’s applications for disability
benefits and supplemental security income.

Our review of the

Commissioner’s

evaluating

the

correct

determination
law

was

is

applied

limited
and

supported by substantial evidence.
632,

634

(4th

Cir.

2015).

to

whether

the

whether

findings

are

Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d

“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).
not

reweigh

evaluating

evidence
whether

a

or

make

credibility

decision

is

We do

determinations

supported

by

in

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

joint

Accordingly, we

Brown v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec. Admin., No. 8:14-cv-04566-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2016).
dispense

with

oral

argument

because
2

the

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 16-1300

Doc: 23

contentions

are

Filed: 11/10/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3