Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01388/USCOURTS-ca4-16-01388-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Nicholas Jarek
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1388

NICHOLAS JAREK,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security 

Administration,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC)

Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

J. Lynn Bishop, LYNN BISHOP, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, 

Kathleen C. Buckner, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, 

North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nicholas Jarek appeals the district court’s order adopting 

the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the 

Commissioner’s denial of Jarek’s applications for disability 

benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the 

Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether 

the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether 

the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 

632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015).

We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the 

administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment.* Jarek v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. 

Feb. 16, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the 

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

 * We note that, while the treatment records and opinion 

letter from Jarek’s pain management specialist may have related 

to the relevant period considered by the ALJ, this evidence does 

not warrant remand. Furthermore, we conclude that the evidence 

submitted to the district court in support of a sentence six 

remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012) either does not relate to 

the relevant period or is not material. See Meyer v. Astrue, 

662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that evidence “is 

material if there is a reasonable possibility that the new 

evidence would have changed the outcome” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)).

Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-1388 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/13/2017 Pg: 3 of 3