Charles Johnson, Jr. v. Carolyn Colvin, Acting Cmsnr
UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED. [14-60726 Affirmed ] Judge: TMR , Judge: JLD , Judge: LHS Mandate pull date is 04/27/2015 [14-60726]
Date Filed: 03/05/2015
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
March 5, 2015
Lyle W. Cayce
CHARLES JOHNSON, JR.,
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:13-CV-114
Before REAVLEY, DENNIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Charles Johnson, Jr. appeals a decision that found
him ineligible for, and that thus denied his claim for, supplemental social
An administrative law judge (ALJ), after considering all
submitted medical records and hearing oral testimony from Johnson,
Johnson’s father, and a vocational expert, concluded that Johnson suffered no
severe impairment and therefore was not disabled under section 1614(a)(3)(A)
of the Social Security Act.
The Social Security Administration Appeals
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
Date Filed: 03/05/2015
Council denied Johnson’s request for review of the ALJ decision.
subsequently sought judicial review of the decision in federal district court,
which affirmed the denial.
Johnson now appeals the district court’s decision.
Our review is limited to determining “whether the Commissioner used
the proper legal standards to evaluate the evidence” and whether “the final
decision is supported by substantial evidence.”
452 (5th Cir. 2000).
Newton v. Apfel, 209 F.3d 448,
The legal standard for evaluating evidence of the severity
of an impairment was announced by this court in Stone v. Heckler, 752 F.2d
1099 (5th Cir. 1985):
an impairment is not severe “only if it is a slight
abnormality [having] such minimal effect on the individual that it would not
be expected to interfere with the individual’s ability to work, irrespective of
age, education, or work experience.”
Id. at 1101 (alteration in original).
ALJ expressly cited and correctly applied Stone in its decision.
To determine whether the decision was supported by substantial
evidence, we “carefully scrutinize the record to determine if, in fact,
[substantial] evidence is present,” but “we may not reweigh the evidence . . .,
nor try the issues de novo, nor substitute our judgment for the
Harrell v. Bowen, 862 F.2d 471, 475 (5th Cir.
Based on a careful review of the record, the parties’ respective briefs,
and the relevant district court opinion, we conclude that substantial evidence
supported the decision.
Because the district court’s careful analysis
thoroughly explains our reasoning, we need not engage in a redundant analysis
simply to reach the same result.
We therefore AFFIRM for essentially the
same reasons as those assigned by the district court.
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?