UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1151
MAGGIE JANE WOODS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00220-D)
Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for
Appellant. Andy Liu, General Counsel, Daniel Callahan, Deputy
General Counsel, Jeffrey Blair, Associate General Counsel, John
Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Mark J. Goldenberg,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maggie Jane Woods appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Woods’ application for supplemental
security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination
is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and
whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir.
2012). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a
conclusion.” Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir.
2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). In conducting this
analysis, we may not “reweigh conflicting evidence, make
credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that
of the [administrative law judge].” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d
288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the
record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible
error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment.
Woods v. Colvin, No. 7:14-cv-00220-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016).
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
2