UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-2436
TAMMY CAMPBELL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:12-cv-00623-JAG)
Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: August 22, 2014
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora
Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory
Attorney, Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J.
Boente, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tammy Campbell appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to uphold the
Commissioner’s denial of Campbell’s application for 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).
Against this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed
the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint
appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Campbell
v. Colvin, No. 3:12-cv-00623-JAG (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2013). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3