Nicholas Jarek v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 16-1388 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1388 NICHOLAS JAREK, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Administration, Commissioner of Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 13, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. J. Lynn Bishop, LYNN BISHOP, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Kathleen C. Buckner, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Paul B. Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nicholas Jarek appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate Commissioner’s judge’s denial of recommendation Jarek’s and applications upholding for the disability benefits and supplemental security income. Our review of the Commissioner’s evaluating determination is limited to whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. judgment. * Jarek v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00620-FDW-DSC (W.D.N.C. Feb. 16, 2016). facts and Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are * adequately presented in the We note that, while the treatment records and opinion letter from Jarek’s pain management specialist may have related to the relevant period considered by the ALJ, this evidence does not warrant remand. Furthermore, we conclude that the evidence submitted to the district court in support of a sentence six remand under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012) either does not relate to the relevant period or is not material. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that evidence “is material if there is a reasonable possibility that the new evidence would have changed the outcome” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 2 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.
