Nicholas Jarek v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [1000003423]. [16-1388]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1388 NICHOLAS JAREK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Administration, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Lynn Bishop, LYNN BISHOP, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Kathleen C. Buckner, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Nicholas Jarek appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate Commissioner’s judge’s denial of recommendation Jarek’s and applications upholding for the disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s evaluating determination is limited to whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. judgment. * Jarek v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2016). facts and Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are * adequately presented in the We note that, while the treatment records and opinion letter from Jarek’s pain management specialist may have related to the relevant period considered by the ALJ, this evidence does not warrant remand. Furthermore, we conclude that the evidence submitted to the district court in support of a sentence six remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012) either does not relate to the relevant period or is not material. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that evidence “is material if there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have changed the outcome” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 materials before Filed: 01/13/2017 this court Pg: 3 of 3 and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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?