Judith Halpern v. SSA , 676 F. App'x 210 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1473
JUDITH HALPERN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
SSA,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02538-TDC)
Submitted: February 9, 2017 Decided: February 17, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit
Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Judith Halpern, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin Blair Prevas, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Judith Halpern appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Halpern’s applications for disability
insurance benefits and supplemental security income. At the
outset, we limit our review to the issues raised in Halpern’s
informal brief. Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th
Cir. 2014). Further, 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 parties’ submissions and discern no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Halpern v. SSA, No. 8:14-cv-02538-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 21, 2016).
2
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
3