Case Name: Annmarie SEREM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-26
Citations: 633 F. App'x 828
Docket Number: No. 15-1518
Parties: Annmarie SEREM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: ' Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 828–828

Head Matter:
Annmarie SEREM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 15-1518.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 28, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2016.
W. Daniel Mayes, Smith, Massey, Bro-die, Guynn & Mayes, P.A., Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Molly E. Carter, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Social Security Administration, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
' Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Annmarie Serem appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and upholding the Commissioner's denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. 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. Serem v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv-02705-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2015). 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.