Judith Halpern v. SSA


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-1473 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/17/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1473 JUDITH HALPERN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. SSA, Defendant - Appellee.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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?