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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?