Heidi M. Parker v. Commissioner

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:16-cv-00058-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000317821]. Mailed to: Parker. [18-1310]

Appeal: 18-1310

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/25/2018

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-1310

HEIDI M. PARKER,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Lynchburg. Robert Stewart Ballou, Magistrate Judge. (6:16-cv-00058-RSB)

Submitted: June 21, 2018

Decided: June 25, 2018

Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Heidi M. Parker, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, Office of the General
Counsel - Region III, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 18-1310

Doc: 11

Filed: 06/25/2018

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Heidi M. Parker appeals the magistrate judge’s * order upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Parker’s application for disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. “In social security proceedings, a court of
appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district court.

That is, a

reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal
standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown
v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 873 F.3d 251, 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted).
Upon review of the administrative record, including the transcript of Parker’s most
recent administrative hearing and all of the relevant medical evidence, we conclude that
the ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Parker’s claim for benefits and
that substantial evidence supports the administrative rulings, all of which were affirmed
by the magistrate judge. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the magistrate
judge. See Parker v. Commissioner, No. 6:16-cv-00058-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 13, 2018).
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

*

The parties consented to a final disposition by the magistrate judge pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

2