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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . [16-1388]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Plaintiff – Appellant,
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)
December 30, 2016
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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Nicholas Jarek appeals the district court’s order adopting
benefits and supplemental security income.
Our review of the
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).
administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no
Jarek v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.
Feb. 16, 2016).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
We dispense with oral argument because 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
Pg: 3 of 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?