Nicholas Jarek v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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