Case Name: Maggie Jane WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-29
Citations: 671 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 16-1151
Parties: Maggie Jane WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
Maggie Jane WOODS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Carolyn W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 16-1151
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 18, 2016
Decided: November 29, 2016
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Andy Liu, General Counsel, Daniel Callahan, Deputy General Counsel, Jeffrey Blair, Associate General Counsel, John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Mark J. Goldenberg, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maggie Jane Woods appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and upholding the Commissioner's denial of Woods' application for 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. Bird v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). "Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this analysis, we may not "reweigh conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [administrative law judge]." Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and the par ties' submissions and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Woods v. Colvin, No. 7:14-cv-00220-D, 2016 WL 236218 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016). 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