Judith Halpern v. SSA

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02538-TDC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000025648]. Mailed to: J Halpern. [16-1473]

Appeal: 16-1473

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1473

JUDITH HALPERN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SSA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02538-TDC)

Submitted:

February 9, 2017

Decided:

February 17, 2017

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Judith Halpern, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1473

Doc: 7

Filed: 02/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Judith Halpern appeals the district court’s order adopting
the

magistrate

judge’s

recommendation

and

upholding

the

Commissioner’s denial of Halpern’s applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income.

At the

outset, we limit our review to the issues raised in Halpern’s
informal brief.
Cir.

Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th

2014).

Further,

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.

Halpern v. SSA, No. 8:14-cv-02538-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2016).
2

Appeal: 16-1473

We

Doc: 7

dispense

contentions

Filed: 02/17/2017

with
are

oral

Pg: 3 of 3

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3