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)
15-1518•Annmarie Serem v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration
15-1518Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitFeb 26, 2016
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-1518
ANNMARIE SEREM,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Aiken. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-02705-JMC)
Submitted: January 28, 2016 Decided: February 26, 2016
Before AGEE and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES, P.A.,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles,
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Molly E.
Carter, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Annmarie Serem appeals the district court’s order accepting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability
insurance benefits. 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. Serem v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv-
02705-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2015). 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.