The opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-1300
JOHNNY RODNEY BROWN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-04566-TMC)
Submitted: October 31, 2016 Decided: November 10, 2016
Before AGEE and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin,
for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn
Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Patricia M. Smith, Assistant
Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Barbara
Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny Rodney Brown appeals the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding
the Commissioner’s denial of Brown’s applications for disability
benefits and 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. Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d
632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). “Substantial evidence is such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650,
653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do
not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in
evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial
evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds
to differ as to whether a claimant is disabled,” we defer to the
Commissioner’s decision. Id. (internal quotation marks
omitted).
Against this framework, 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. Brown v. Comm’r of Soc.
Sec. Admin., No. 8:14-cv-04566-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2016). We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3