Josephine Harris v. Commissioner

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1276 JOSEPHINE HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-01516-SAG) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josephine Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Josephine Harris appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits. * Our review of the Commissioner’s disability determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (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). With this framework in mind, we have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s order. Harris v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-cv-01516-SAG (D. Md. filed Feb. 6, 2013 & entered Feb. 7, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and * The parties consented to the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3