Tammy Campbell v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 13-2436 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-2436 TAMMY CAMPBELL, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Administration, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00623-JAG) Submitted: July 31, 2014 Decided: August 22, 2014 Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bruce K. Billman, Fredericksburg, Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Victor Pane, Supervisory Attorney, Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Dana J. Boente, United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tammy adopting the Campbell appeals magistrate judge s the district recommendation court s to order uphold the Commissioner s denial of Campbell s application for 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. Cir. 2005). a See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as reasonable conclusion. reweigh mind accept as adequate to support Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). evidence evaluating might or whether a make credibility decision is We do not determinations supported by a 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 this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the parties briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Campbell v. Colvin, No. 3:12-cv-00623-JAG (E.D. Va. Oct. 2, 2013). dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 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.
