Case ID: f-appx_562/html/0551-02.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

Joshua D. McENTIRE, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 13-3623.
    United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
    Submitted: June 19, 2014.
    Filed: June 24, 2014.
    
      Frederick S. Spencer, Frederick S. Spencer, Attorney at Law, Mountain Home, AR, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Adrial B. McField, Special, Joanna Tate, Assistant Regional Counsel, Social Security Administration Office of General Counsel Region VI, Dallas, TX, Kristi Schmidt, Deputy, Social Security Administration, Office of General Counsel Region VII, Kansas City, MO, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before GRUENDER, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM.

Joshua D. McEntire appeals from an order of the District Court affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Upon de novo review, we find that the denial of benefits is supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. See Myers v. Colvin, 721 F.3d 521, 524 (8th Cir.2013). Specifically, we find no merit to McEntire’s challenges to the administrative law judge’s (ALJ’s) credibility determination, see Halverson v. Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 931-32 (8th Cir.2010) (noting that ALJ may discount claimant’s subjective complaints if there are inconsistencies in the record as whole); or to the ALJ’s residual functional capacity (RFC) findings, see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir.2012) (noting that medical records, physician observations, and claimant’s subjective statements about his capabilities are considerations in RFC findings and that RFC findings must also be supported by some medical evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the District Court. 
      
      . The Honorable Erin Setser, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).