Treece v. Colvin

Fourth Circuit

Treece v. Colvin

670 F. App'x 89

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedOctober 25, 2016

DocketNo. 16-1394

StatusPublished

This text of 670 F. App'x 89 (Treece v. Colvin) 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

Treece v. Colvin, 670 F. App'x 89 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Treece appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s suspension of Treece’s old-age 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 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005).

We'have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Treece v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-01077-NCT-LPA, 2016 WL 1181704 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2016). 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

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Charles A. Treece appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to affirm the Commissioner’s suspension of Treece’s old-age 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 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2012); Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th Cir. 2005).

We'have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record and discern no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. Treece v. Colvin, No. 1:14-cv-01077-NCT-LPA, 2016 WL 1181704 (M.D.N.C. Mar. 25, 2016). 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)

670 F. App'x 89, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/treece-v-colvin-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack