Terri Everman v. Andrew Saul ( 2020 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-1569
TERRI TIMMONS EVERMAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (2:17-cv-03348-JMC)
Submitted: April 28, 2020 Decided: May 7, 2020
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., FINKEL LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina;
Sarah H. Bohr, BOHR & HARRINGTON, LLC, Atlantic Beach, Florida, for Appellant.
Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Charles Kawas, Supervisory Attorney, Evelyn
Rose Marie Protano, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sherri A. Lydon, United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terri Timmons Everman appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ) denial of Everman’s application for disability insurance benefits. “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. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Everman v. Comm’r
Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:17-cv-3348-JMC (D.S.C. Mar. 26, 2019). We dispense with oral
2
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