UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-2409
LOUIS KEITH HARRIS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:11-cv-01590-DCN)
Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013
Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES, P.A.,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States
Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; John Jay Lee, Regional Chief
Counsel, Noah M. Schabacker, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Keith Harris appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny him
supplemental security insurance benefits and a period of
disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record and
affirm.
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) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006)).
“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,” we
defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation
marks omitted).
Harris claims (1) that the magistrate judge erred in
restricting his review after the second remand of Harris’s
petition solely to the issue of credibility; (2) that the
district court should have remanded the case for the
2
administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to consider the opinion of Dr.
Holford, which was acquired only after the conclusion of
administrative proceedings; and (3) that the ALJ’s credibility
findings with respect to the degree of pain suffered by Harris
are both unclear and unsupported by substantial evidence.
Having reviewed each of Harris’ arguments in light of the
record, we conclude that none of them suffices to disturb the
ALJ’s denial of benefits.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. 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