Louis Harris v. Commissioner of Social Security, No. 12-2409 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-2409 LOUIS KEITH HARRIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:11-cv-01590-DCN) Submitted: August 20, 2013 Decided: August 23, 2013 Before WILKINSON, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES, P.A., Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. William N. Nettles, United States Attorney, Marshall Prince, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; John Jay Lee, Regional Chief Counsel, Noah M. Schabacker, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Denver, Colorado, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Louis Keith Harris appeals the district court s order adopting the magistrate judge s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner of Social supplemental security Security s insurance disability insurance benefits. decision benefits to deny him a period of and We have reviewed the record and affirm. 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. Cir. 2005) See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. ยง 405(g) (2006)). Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. (internal quotation marks omitted). or make decision credibility is conflicting evidence We do not reweigh evidence determinations supported by allows Id. in evaluating substantial reasonable defer to the Commissioner s decision. whether evidence; minds to a [w]here differ, we Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Harris claims (1) that the magistrate judge erred in restricting his petition solely district court review to the should after the second issue of have remanded 2 remand credibility; the of (2) case Harris s that the for the administrative law judge ( ALJ ) to consider the opinion of Dr. Holford, which was acquired only after the conclusion of administrative proceedings; and (3) that the ALJ s credibility findings with respect to the degree of pain suffered by Harris are both Having unclear reviewed and each unsupported of Harris by substantial arguments in evidence. light of the record, we conclude that none of them suffices to disturb the ALJ s denial of benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. legal before We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3