Filed: Mar. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1564 KENNETH M. DICKERSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHED
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-1564 KENNETH M. DICKERSON, SR., Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant – Appellee, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Party-in-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP) Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016 Before SHEDD..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1564
KENNETH M. DICKERSON, SR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Party-in-Interest.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael L. Henry, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth M. Dickerson, Sr., appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Dickerson’s applications for disability
benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the
Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the
correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by
substantial evidence. 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 the district court’s judgment. Dickerson v. Colvin, No.
1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2015). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
3
adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
4