Maggie Woods v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 16-1151 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1151 MAGGIE JANE WOODS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social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. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (7:14-cv-00220-D) Submitted: November 18, 2016 Decided: November 29, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. Andy Liu, General Counsel, Daniel Callahan, Deputy General Counsel, Jeffrey Blair, Associate General Counsel, John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, Mark J. Goldenberg, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Maggie Jane Woods appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial security income. of Woods’ application for supplemental Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Bird v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., 699 F.3d 337, 340 (4th Cir. 2012). “Substantial evidence means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind conclusion.” might accept as adequate support a Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). analysis, to we may not “reweigh In conducting this conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that of the [administrative law judge].” Radford v. Colvin, 734 F.3d 288, 296 (4th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Within this framework, we have thoroughly reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Woods v. Colvin, No. 7:14-cv-00220-D (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20, 2016). 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 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.