Nathaniel Costley, Sr. v. Commissioner, Social Security

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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