Suzette Johnson v. Martin O'Malley ( 2024 )


Menu:
  • USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438      Doc: 13         Filed: 11/18/2024    Pg: 1 of 3
    UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 24-1438
    SUZETTE JOHNSON,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    v.
    MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,
    Defendant - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:23-cv-00341-RBS-DEM)
    Submitted: November 14, 2024                                Decided: November 18, 2024
    Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Suzette Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Patrick Shean, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
    STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438      Doc: 13          Filed: 11/18/2024     Pg: 2 of 3
    PER CURIAM:
    Suzette Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
    recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Johnson’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) (internal quotation marks and citation
    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) (internal
    quotation marks and citation 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) (internal quotation marks,
    brackets, and citation omitted).
    We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
    correct legal standards in evaluating Johnson’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
    findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
    judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Johnson v. O’Malley, No. 2:23-cv-00341-RBS-
    DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
    2
    USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438      Doc: 13        Filed: 11/18/2024     Pg: 3 of 3
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    AFFIRMED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 24-1438

Filed Date: 11/18/2024

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/19/2024