Billy Thompson v. Commissioner, Social Security

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:14-cv-03805-JMC. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999994363]. [16-1407]

Appeal: 16-1407

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1407

BILLY M. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg.
J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-03805-JMC)

Submitted:

November 29, 2016

Decided:

December 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville,
South Carolina; Timothy Clardy, THE DENNISON LAW FIRM, PC,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Nora Koch, Acting
Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory
Attorney,
Sandra
Romagnole,
Assistant
Regional
Counsel,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States
Attorney, Barbara Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1407

Doc: 26

Filed: 12/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Billy Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

and

upholding

the

Commissioner’s denial of Thompson’s application for disability
insurance

benefits.

Our

review

of

the

Commissioner’s

determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law
was

applied

and

whether

substantial evidence.

the

findings

are

supported

by

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 might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.”
(4th

Cir.

2012)

conducting

this

Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472

(internal
analysis,

evidence,

make
for

that

we

credibility

judgment

of

quotation
may

marks

not

“reweigh

determinations,
the

omitted).

or

conflicting

substitute

[administrative

In

law

our

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.

Thompson
2016).
legal

v.

Colvin,

No.

5:14-cv-03805-JMC

(D.S.C.

Feb.

11,

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 16-1407

before

Doc: 26

this

court

Filed: 12/28/2016

and

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

AFFIRMED

3