Case ID: f-appx_671/html/0149-01.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

Nia SHERIDAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 16-1289
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 30, 2016
    Decided: December 14, 2016
    
      Daniel S. Jones, Law Offices of Harry J. Binder & Charles E. Binder, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jill West-moreland Rose, United States Attorney, Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Nia Sheridan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Sheridan’s application for 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. 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. Sheridan v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH, 2016 WL 347701 (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 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