Elizabeth Williamson v. Carolyn Colvin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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