Case Name: Marc Edward TEACHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-14
Citations: 671 F. App'x 150
Docket Number: No. 16-1367
Parties: Marc Edward TEACHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 150–151

Head Matter:
Marc Edward TEACHEY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1367
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2016
Decided: December 14, 2016
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Elisa F. Donohoe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc Edward Teachey appeals the district court's order upholding the Commissioner's denial of Teachey's applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the Commissioner's determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). "Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (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 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. 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