# Brown v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · November 10, 2016 · 670 F. App'x 173

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4097436

## Case

- **Full name:** Johnny Rodney BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** November 10, 2016
- **Citations:** 670 F. App'x 173
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Agee, Harris, Hamilton
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4097436

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4097436. Public record. Not legal advice.