Opinion
No. 16-1289
12-14-2016
NIA SHERIDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee.
Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E. BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH) Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E. BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Nia Sheridan appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and upholding the Commissioner's denial of Sheridan's application for 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. 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. Sheridan v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2016). 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