Elizabeth Williamson v. Carolyn Colvin


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 5:15-cv-00070-GCM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000115817].. [16-2315]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-2315 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/11/2017 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-2315 ELIZABETH W. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:15-cv-00070-GCM) Submitted: May 31, 2017 Decided: July 11, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel F. Furgiuele, Jr., Boone, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Katherine T. Armstrong, Assistant United States Attorneys, Christian M. Vainieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 16-2315 Doc: 20 Filed: 07/11/2017 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Elizabeth W. Williamson appeals the district court’s order affirming the Commissioner’s denial of Williamson’s application for disability benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Williamson v. Berryhill, No. 5:15-cv-00070-GCM (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2016). 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 2

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?