Billy M. Thompson v. Commissioner of the Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1407
BILLY M. THOMPSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-03805-JMC)
Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 28, 2016
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville,
South Carolina; Timothy Clardy, THE DENNISON LAW FIRM, PC,
Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting
Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory
Attorney, Sandra Romagnole, Assistant Regional Counsel,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States
Attorney, Barbara Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Billy Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting
the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the
Commissioner’s denial of Thompson’s application for disability
insurance benefits. 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.
Thompson v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-03805-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11,
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 --