The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-1066•Irene Hitchens v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security
15-1066Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 29, 2015
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1066
IRENE HITCHENS,
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. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:13-cv-00040-FL)
Submitted: November 30, 2015 Decided: December 29, 2015
Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, 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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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, David N. Mervis,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Irene Hitchens appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Hitchens’ applications for disability
benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the
Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether
the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether
the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d
632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015).
We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the
administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no
reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
judgment. Hitchens v. Colvin, No. 7:13-cv-00040-FL (E.D.N.C.
Dec. 9, 2014). 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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.