Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 15 views

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income to Kenneth Dickerson. The Court's review is limited to determining whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    15 views4 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income to Kenneth Dickerson. The Court's review is limited to determining whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-03-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-1564

    Original Title

    Kenneth Dickerson, Sr. v. Carolyn Colvin, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income to Kenneth Dickerson. The Court's review is limited to determining whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    15 views4 pages

    Unpublished

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's decision upholding the Social Security Commissioner's denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income to Kenneth Dickerson. The Court's review is limited to determining whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. After reviewing the parties' briefs and the administrative record, the Court found no reversible error in the district court's judgment affirming the Commissioner's denial. Therefore, the Court affirmed the district court's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 4

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-1564

    KENNETH M. DICKERSON, SR.,


    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant Appellee,
    and
    SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
    Party-in-Interest.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    Senior District Judge. (1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP)

    Submitted:

    January 28, 2016

    Decided:

    March 2, 2016

    Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    J. Kevin Morton, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant.


    Ripley Rand, United States Attorney, Michael L. Henry, Special
    Assistant United States Attorney, Boston, Massachusetts, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Kenneth M. Dickerson, Sr., appeals the district courts order
    adopting the magistrate judges recommendation and upholding the
    Commissioners denial of Dickersons applications for disability
    benefits and supplemental security income.

    Our review of the

    Commissioners determination is limited to evaluating whether the


    correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by
    substantial evidence.
    Cir. 2015).

    Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th

    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 Commissioners decision.

    Id. (internal

    quotation marks omitted).


    Against
    parties

    this

    briefs,

    framework,
    the

    we

    have

    administrative

    thoroughly
    record,

    appendix, and we discern no reversible error.


    affirm the district courts judgment.

    reviewed

    and

    the

    the

    joint

    Accordingly, we

    Dickerson v. Colvin, No.

    1:11-cv-00001-JAB-JEP (M.D.N.C. Mar. 24, 2015).

    We dispense with

    oral

    contentions

    argument

    because

    the

    facts

    and

    legal

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this

    court

    and

    argument would not aid the decisional process.


    AFFIRMED

    You might also like