Marc Teachey v. Carolyn Colvin, No. 16-1367 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1367 MARC EDWARD TEACHEY, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (4:14-cv-00178-BO) Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016 Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Lee Davis, III, Lumberton, North Carolina, for Appellant. John Stuart Bruce, United States Attorney, G. Norman Acker, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Elisa F. Donohoe, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Marc Edward Teachey appeals the district court’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Teachey’s applications for disability insurance benefits and 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. 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir. 2015). Mascio v. Colvin, “Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is supported by 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 reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. judgment. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s We dispense 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 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.
