Nia Sheridan v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 16-1289 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1289 NIA SHERIDAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Martin K. Reidinger, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH) Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016 Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel S. Jones, LAW OFFICES OF HARRY J. BINDER & CHARLES E. BINDER, P.C., New York, New York, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, United States Attorney, Paul Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Christian M. Vainieri, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Nia Sheridan appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Sheridan’s application for supplemental security income. 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. Sheridan v. Colvin, No. 3:14-cv-00639-MR-DLH (W.D.N.C. Jan. 28, 2016). legal We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials 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.
