Kelvin Devaughn Watson v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 14-1254 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-1254 KELVIN DEVAUGHN WATSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Stephanie A. Gallagher, Magistrate Judge. (1:13-cv-00205-SAG) Submitted: November 25, 2014 Decided: February 13, 2015 Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcia E. Anderson, LAW OFFICE OF MARCIA E. ANDERSON, LLC, Mount Airy, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kelvin Devaughn Watson appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of disability benefits and supplemental security income. ∗ insurance 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 evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 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 the conflicting as to whether Commissioner’s evidence a allows claimant decision. is Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Against parties’ this briefs, framework, the we have administrative thoroughly record, appendix, and we discern no reversible error. reviewed and the the joint Accordingly, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the magistrate judge. Watson v. Colvin, No. 1:13–cv–00205–SAG (D. Md. Feb. 12, 2014). ∗ The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012). 2 We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal 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.
