Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01172/USCOURTS-ca4-19-01172-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-1172

KIMBERLY WADDELL,

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 Rock 

Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:17-cv-03030-DCN)

Submitted: December 30, 2019 Decided: January 13, 2020

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin, for 

Appellant. Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Eric Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, 

Thomas Moshang, III, Supervisory Attorney, Peter Colonna-Romano, Special Assistant 

United States Attorney, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1172 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kimberly Waddell appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Waddell’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. Our recent decision 

in Lawrence v. Saul, 941 F.3d 140, 142-45 (4th Cir. 2019), forecloses Waddell’s claim that 

there was an apparent conflict between her residual functional capacity as determined by 

the ALJ and the Reasoning Level 2 jobs identified by the vocational expert. The ALJ 

applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Waddell’s claim for benefits, and the 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1172 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the 

district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. See Waddell v. Comm’r of Soc. 

Sec. Admin., No. 0:17-cv-03030-DCN (D.S.C. Jan. 15, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-1172 Doc: 27 Filed: 01/13/2020 Pg: 3 of 3