UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2251
TERRY REGAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant – Appellee,
and
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (7:12-cv-00136-D)
Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 22, 2014
Before WYNN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R. A.
Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Todd J. Lewellen,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Terry Regan appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm, as
supported by substantial evidence, the Social Security
Administration Appeals Council’s decision to adopt the
Administrative Law Judge’s denial of Regan’s applications for
disability 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).
Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed
the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the
materials submitted in the joint appendix, and we discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. See Regan v. Colvin, No. 7:12–cv–00136–D (E.D.N.C.
3
Sept. 17, 2013). 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
4