Albert Brown, Jr. v. Carolyn W. Colvin, No. 14-1631 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseCourt Description: Civil case - Social Security. Denial of benefits affirmed without comment.
Download PDF
United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 14-1631 ___________________________ Albert B. Brown, Jr. lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant v. Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Nebraska - Omaha ____________ Submitted: October 7, 2014 Filed: October 24, 2014 [Unpublished] ____________ Before WOLLMAN, BYE, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. ____________ PER CURIAM. Albert B. Brown, Jr., appeals the district court s1 order affirming the denial of disability insurance benefits. Upon de novo review, see Van Vickle v. Astrue, 539 1 The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska. F.3d 825, 828 & n.2 (8th Cir. 2008), and careful consideration of Brown s arguments for reversal, we find no error in the administrative law judge s (ALJ s) determination that Brown was not disabled before his date last insured. A decision not to reopen a prior final decision is not subject to judicial review absent a colorable constitutional challenge. See Hardy v. Chater, 64 F.3d 405, 407-08 (8th Cir. 1995). To the extent Brown challenges the ALJ s determinations as to credibility and residual functional capacity (RFC), we find that the credibility determination is supported by substantial evidence and valid reasons and thus is entitled to deference, see Turpin v. Colvin, 750 F.3d 989, 993 (8th Cir. 2014); and that Brown failed to meet his burden of establishing a more limited RFC, see Perks v. Astrue, 687 F.3d 1086, 1092 (8th Cir. 2012). The judgment of the district court is affirmed, see 8th Cir. R. 47B, and Brown s motion to strike is denied. ______________________________ -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.
