Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01756/USCOURTS-ca4-14-01756-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carolyn W. Colvin
Appellee
Tonia Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-1756

TONIA WILSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Malcolm J. Howard,

Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00370-MJH-JLW)

Submitted: February 27, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David J. Cortes, ROBERTI, WITTENBERG, LAUFFER, WICKER & CINSKI, 

Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Ripley Rand, United 

States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Lisa G. Smoller, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-1756 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tonia Wilson appeals the district court’s order upholding 

the Commissioner’s denial of Wilson’s application for disability 

benefits. 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 the district court’s order. Wilson v. Colvin, No. 1:11-

cv-00370-MJH-JLW (M.D.N.C. May 28, 2014). We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

Appeal: 14-1756 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 14-1756 Doc: 31 Filed: 03/24/2015 Pg: 3 of 3