Derek Jarvis v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion transfer case [999964569-2]; denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999990240-2] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-02226-TMD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000162791]. Mailed to: Derek Jarvis. [16-2181]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2181 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/27/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2181 DEREK N. JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Thomas M. DiGirolamo, Magistrate Judge. (8:15-cv-02226-TMD) Submitted: August 29, 2017 Decided: September 27, 2017 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek N. Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2181 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/27/2017 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Derek N. Jarvis appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Jarvis’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. * We review de novo a district court’s decision on a motion for summary judgment. Martin v. Lloyd, 700 F.3d 132, 135 (4th Cir. 2012). In turn, a district court will affirm the Social Security Administration’s disability determination when an administrative law judge (“ALJ”) has applied the correct law and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Monroe v. Colvin, 826 F.3d 176, 186 (4th Cir. 2016). In conducting this deferential review, the court does “not conduct a de novo review of the evidence,” Smith v. Schweiker, 795 F.2d 343, 345 (4th Cir. 1986), or undertake to reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012). “The duty to resolve conflicts in the evidence rests with the ALJ, not with a reviewing court.” Smith v. Chater, 99 F.3d 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Jarvis’s disability claim, and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Jarvis v. Colvin, No. 8:15-cv-02226-TMD (D. Md. Sept. 27, 2016). We also deny Jarvis’s motion to transfer this appeal to the United States Court of Federal * The parties consented to a final disposition by the magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). Therefore, it was proper for the magistrate judge to exercise full jurisdiction over the proceeding and to enter a final disposition. 2 Appeal: 16-2181 Doc: 25 Filed: 09/27/2017 Pg: 3 of 3 Claims and deny as moot the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss this appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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?