Nathaniel Costley, Sr. v. Commissioner, Social Security ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-1629
    NATHANIEL M. COSTLEY, SR.,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    COMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00179-ELH)
    Submitted: November 25, 2019                                Decided: December 17, 2019
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Nicole Norris, Special Assistant
    United States Attorney, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
    ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Nathaniel M. Costley, Sr., appeals the district court’s orders adopting the magistrate
    judge’s recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
    his application for disability insurance benefits. He also appeals from the district court’s
    order construing his late-filed objections as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion and denying that
    motion. “In social security proceedings, a court of appeals applies the same standard of
    review as does the district court. That is, a reviewing court must uphold the determination
    when an ALJ has applied correct legal standards and the ALJ’s factual findings are
    supported by substantial evidence.” Brown v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., 
    873 F.3d 251
    ,
    267 (4th Cir. 2017) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). “Substantial evidence
    is that which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. It
    consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.”
    Pearson v. Colvin, 
    810 F.3d 204
    , 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation and internal quotation marks
    omitted).   “In reviewing for substantial evidence, we do not undertake to reweigh
    conflicting evidence, make credibility determinations, or substitute our judgment for that
    of the ALJ. Where conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ as to whether a
    claimant is disabled, the responsibility for that decision falls on the ALJ.” Hancock v.
    Astrue, 
    667 F.3d 470
    , 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks
    omitted).
    We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
    correct legal standards in evaluating Costley’s claims, and the ALJ’s factual findings are
    supported by substantial evidence. Moreover, we find no abuse of discretion by the district
    2
    court in construing Costley’s late-filed objections as a Rule 59(e) motion and, after
    consideration of the arguments presented, in denying the motion. Accordingly, we affirm
    the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of Costley’s application for disability
    insurance benefits and denying his motion for reconsideration of that order. See Costley v.
    Comm’r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:18-cv-00179-ELH (D. Md. Oct. 16, 2018 & May 9, 2019). 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
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 19-1629

Filed Date: 12/17/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/17/2019