Serem v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

Fourth Circuit

Serem v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

633 F. App'x 828

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 26, 2016

DocketNo. 15-1518

StatusPublished

This text of 633 F. App'x 828 (Serem v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Serem v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 633 F. App'x 828 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Annmarie Serem appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir.2015). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Serem v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv-02705-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2015). 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Annmarie Serem appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Commissioner’s denial of her application for disability insurance benefits. Our review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law was applied. See Mascio v. Colvin, 780 F.3d 632, 634 (4th Cir.2015). We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, the administrative record, and the joint appendix, and we discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Serem v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:13-cv-02705-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2015). 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

633 F. App'x 828, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/serem-v-commissioner-of-social-security-administration-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack