UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-1254
KELVIN DEVAUGHN WATSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate
Judge. (1:13-cv-00205-SAG)
Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: February 13, 2015
Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marcia E. Anderson, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA E. ANDERSON, LLC, Mount
Airy, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States
Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kelvin Devaughn Watson appeals the magistrate judge’s order
upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability insurance
benefits and supplemental security income. ∗ 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 substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge.
Watson v. Colvin, No. 1:13–cv–00205–SAG (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2014).
∗
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
2
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