Anthony Callaham v. Commissioner of SSA ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-1069
    ANTHONY C. CALLAHAM,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
    Beaufort. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (9:16-cv-03591-TMC)
    Submitted: November 27, 2018                                Decided: December 21, 2018
    Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Donald L. Pilzer, DON PILZER LAW, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
    Beth Drake, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States
    Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina;
    Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Kristina C.E.
    Cole, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony C. Callaham appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
    Callaham’s application for disability insurance benefits. “In social security proceedings,
    a court of appeals applies the same standard of review as does the district court. That is,
    a reviewing court must uphold the determination when an ALJ has applied correct legal
    standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.” Brown
    v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    873 F.3d 251
    , 267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal
    quotation marks omitted).
    We have reviewed the administrative record, including the transcript of
    Callaham’s hearing before the ALJ, in conjunction with Callaham’s brief on appeal, and
    find no error. Specifically, despite Callaham’s assertion to the contrary, we conclude the
    ALJ applied the correct legal standard * in evaluating Callaham’s subjective claims as to
    the intensity, persistence, and effect of his pain. See Ladda v. Berryhill, No. 17-1366,
    
    2018 WL 5096065
    , at *4 (4th Cir. Oct. 18, 2018) (argued but unpublished). We also
    reject Callaham’s challenge to the standard employed by the district court in conducting
    its review of the ALJ’s ruling. Accord Ealy v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 
    594 F.3d 504
    , 512
    (6th Cir. 2010) (recognizing that the court of appeals reviews a district court’s decision in
    a social security case “de novo,” but that the appellate court’s “review is limited to
    *
    See 
    20 C.F.R. § 404.1529
    (b)-(c) (2018).
    2
    determining whether the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial evidence
    and was made pursuant to proper legal standards” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of
    benefits. See Callaham v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:16-cv-03591-TMC (D.S.C.
    Dec. 11, 2017). 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-1069

Filed Date: 12/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2018