Case ID: f-appx_676/html/0210-02.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

Judith HALPERN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SSA, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1473
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 9, 2017
    Decided: February 17, 2017
    
      Judith Halpern, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
   Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Judith Halpern appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Halpern’s applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. At the outset, we limit our review to the issues raised in Halpern’s informal brief. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014). Further, 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. Halpern v. SSA, No. 8:14-cv-02538-TDC, 2016 WL 429965 (D. Md. Mar. 21, 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