Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02065/USCOURTS-ca4-19-02065-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 864
Nature of Suit: Social Security - SSID Title XVI
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-2065

DEXTER XAVIER TAYLOR, JR.,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

ANDREW SAUL, Commissioner of Social Security,

 Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Greenville. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (4:18-cv-00064-D)

Submitted: April 13, 2020 Decided: April 22, 2020

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dexter Xavier Taylor, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Keeya Marie Jeffrey, Special Assistant U. S. 

Attorney, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2065 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Dexter Xavier Taylor, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s 

(ALJ) denial of Taylor’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. The ALJ applied the 

correct legal standards in evaluating Taylor’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. Taylor v. Saul, No. 4:18-cv-00064-D 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-2065 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

(E.D.N.C. Aug. 30, 2019); see also Lawrence v. Saul, 941 F.3d 140, 143 (4th Cir. 2019)

(holding that there is no apparent conflict between a limitation to “simple, routine, 

repetitive” tasks and the reasoning required by Level 2 occupations). 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: 19-2065 Doc: 6 Filed: 04/22/2020 Pg: 3 of 3