Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0279-01.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

Billy M. THOMPSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1407
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 29, 2016
    Decided: December 28, 2016
    Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, Metcalfe & Atkinson, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina; Timothy Clardy, The Dennison Law Firm, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory Attorney, Sandra Romagnole, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia] Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Barbara Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Billy Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Thompson’s application for disability insurance benefits. 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. Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this analysis, we may not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [administrative law judge].” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Thompson v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-03805-JMC, 2016 WL 536744 (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 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