Nicholas Jarek v. Carolyn Colvin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1388
NICHOLAS JAREK,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC)
Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
J. Lynn Bishop, LYNN BISHOP, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney,
Kathleen C. Buckner, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas Jarek appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Jarek’s applications for disability
benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the
Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether
the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether
the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d
632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015).
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
judgment. * Jarek v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C.
Feb. 16, 2016). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*We note that, while the treatment records and opinion
letter from Jarek’s pain management specialist may have related
to the relevant period considered by the ALJ, this evidence does
not warrant remand. Furthermore, we conclude that the evidence
submitted to the district court in support of a sentence six
remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012) either does not relate to
the relevant period or is not material. See Meyer v. Astrue,
662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that evidence “is
material if there is a reasonable possibility that the new
evidence would have changed the outcome” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3