Marc Teachey v. Carolyn Colvin ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1367
MARC EDWARD TEACHEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00178-BO)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
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.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
2