Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01254/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1254

KELVIN DEVAUGHN WATSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate

Judge. (1:13-cv-00205-SAG)

Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: February 13, 2015

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marcia E. Anderson, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA E. ANDERSON, LLC, Mount 

Airy, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States 

Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1254 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/13/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelvin Devaughn Watson appeals the magistrate judge’s order 

upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance 

benefits and supplemental security income.∗ Our review of the 

Commissioner’s disability determination is limited to evaluating 

whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and 

whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 

434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). “Substantial evidence is 

such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks 

omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility 

determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by 

substantial evidence; “[w]here 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 substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. 

Watson v. Colvin, No. 1:13–cv–00205–SAG (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2014). 

 ∗ The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).

Appeal: 14-1254 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/13/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 14-1254 Doc: 32 Filed: 02/13/2015 Pg: 3 of 3