Johnny Brown v. Commissioner of SSA, No. 16-1300 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1300 JOHNNY RODNEY BROWN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY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 Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting Rodney the Brown magistrate appeals the judge’s district court’s recommendation and order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Brown’s applications for disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s evaluating the correct determination law was is applied limited and supported by substantial evidence. 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). to whether the whether findings are Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d “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). not reweigh evaluating evidence whether a or make credibility decision is We do determinations supported by in 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 parties’ this briefs, framework, the we have administrative thoroughly record, appendix, and we discern no reversible error. affirm the district court’s judgment. reviewed and the joint Accordingly, we Brown v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 8:14-cv-04566-TMC (D.S.C. Feb. 16, 2016). dispense with oral argument because 2 the the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.
