Nia Sheridan v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1289
NIA SHERIDAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E.
BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jill
Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Paul Taylor,
Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Nia Sheridan appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Sheridan’s 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.
Sheridan v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28,
2016). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

-- 2 of 3 --

3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --