Billy Thompson v. Commissioner, Social Security, No. 16-1407 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-1407 BILLY M. THOMPSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Orangeburg. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (5:14-cv-03805-JMC) Submitted: November 29, 2016 Decided: December 28, 2016 Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hannah Rogers Metcalfe, METCALFE & ATKINSON, LLC, Greenville, South Carolina; Timothy Clardy, THE DENNISON LAW FIRM, PC, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Acting Supervisory Attorney, Sandra Romagnole, Assistant Regional Counsel, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, Barbara Bowens, Chief, Civil Division, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy Thompson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Thompson’s application for disability insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the correct law was applied and whether substantial evidence. the findings are supported by 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 might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” (4th Cir. 2012) conducting this Hancock v. Astrue, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (internal analysis, evidence, make for that we credibility judgment of quotation may marks not “reweigh determinations, the omitted). or conflicting substitute [administrative In law our 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. Thompson 2016). legal v. Colvin, No. 5:14-cv-03805-JMC (D.S.C. Feb. 11, 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.
