Joshua McEntire v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Filing

PER CURIAM OPINION FILED - THE COURT: Raymond W. Gruender, Pasco M. Bowman and Bobby E. Shepherd (UNPUBLISHED) [4168071] [13-3623]

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eighth Circuit
___________________________
No. 13-3623
___________________________
Joshua D. McEntire
lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant
v.
Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration
lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee
____________
Appeal from United States District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas - Harrison
____________
Submitted: June 19, 2014
Filed: June 24, 2014
[Unpublished]
____________
Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
____________
PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 13-3623

Page: 1

Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Entry ID: 4168071

Joshua D. McEntire appeals from an order of the District Court1 affirming the
denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de
novo review, we find that the denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence
on the record as a whole. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir. 2013).
Specifically, we find no merit to McEntire’s challenges to the administrative law
judge’s (ALJ’s) credibility determination, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922,
931–32 (8th Cir. 2010) (noting that ALJ may discount claimant’s subjective
complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as whole); or to the ALJ’s residual
functional capacity (RFC) findings, see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.
2012) (noting that medical records, physician observations, and claimant’s subjective
statements about his capabilities are considerations in RFC findings and that RFC
findings must also be supported by some medical evidence). Accordingly, we affirm
the judgment of the District Court.
______________________________

1

The Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western
District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent
of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).
-2-

Appellate Case: 13-3623

Page: 2

Date Filed: 06/24/2014 Entry ID: 4168071