Josephine Harris v. Commissioner, No. 13-1276 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-1276 JOSEPHINE HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-01516-SAG) Submitted: July 25, 2013 Decided: July 29, 2013 Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josephine Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Alex Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Josephine Harris appeals the magistrate judge s order upholding the Commissioner of Social Security s decision to deny her disability insurance benefits. * Our review of the Commissioner s disability determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005). Substantial evidence is such relevant adequate to evidence support marks omitted). a as a reasonable conclusion. mind Id. might accept (internal as quotation We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by substantial evidence; reasonable minds disabled, we to defer [w]here differ to conflicting as the to evidence whether Commissioner s a allows claimant decision. is Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). With this framework in mind, record and find no reversible error. magistrate judge s order. Harris we have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm the v. Comm r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:11-cv-01516-SAG (D. Md. filed Feb. 6, 2013 & entered Feb. 7, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and * The parties consented to the jurisdiction magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 of the legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.