Case ID: f-appx_692/html/0738-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Elizabeth W. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nancy A. BERRYHILL, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-2315
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: May 31, 2017
    Decided: July 11, 2017
    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. Vai-nieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

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; “[wjhere 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