Samantha Watson v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 14-2093 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-2093 SAMANTHA P. WATSON, Plaintiff – Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Kimberly A. Swank, Magistrate Judge. (7:13-cv-00212-KS) Submitted: August 31, 2015 Decided: September 9, 2015 Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Thomas G. Walker, United States Attorney, R.A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, David N. Mervis, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samantha affirming the P. benefits. Watson appeals Commissioner’s the denial district of disability order insurance We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. * substantially Watson court’s v. for the Colvin, reasons No. stated Accordingly, we affirm by 7:13-cv-00212-KS the district (E.D.N.C. court. Sept. 18, 2014); see Hines v. Barnhart, 453 F.3d 559, 566 (4th Cir. 2006) (permitting vocational consideration of all expert other testimony evidence in “based the upon record” and a “in response to proper hypothetical questions which fairly set out all of omitted)); claimant’s 2005) Johnson v. (recognizing supported impairments” by Barnhart, hypothetical substantial (internal 434 must evidence). F.3d 650, include We quotation 659 only dispense (4th marks Cir. impairments with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * Watson has waived appellate review of her claims under Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632 (4th Cir. 2015). See In re Under Seal, 749 F.3d 276, 285 (4th Cir. 2014) (recognizing issues raised for first time on appeal generally will not be considered); Holland v. Big River Minerals Corp., 181 F.3d 597, 605-06 (4th Cir. 1999) (describing limitations on exception based on intervening change in law). 2

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.