Tonia Wilson v. Carolyn Colvin ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3