UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1493

ANGELA MAY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. 

Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. (9:20-cv-02197-MGL)

Submitted: March 3, 2023 Decided: April 12, 2023

Before RICHARDSON and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Paul T. McChesney, MCCHESNEY & MCCHESNEY, P.C., Spartanburg, 

South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Katie M. 

Gaughan, Supervisory Attorney, Mark J. Dorval, Special Assistant United States Attorney, 

Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, 

Maryland; Adair Ford Boroughs, United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, 

Andrew R. de Holl, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1493 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Angela May appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 

recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of May’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) (cleaned up). “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) (cleaned up). “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) 

(cleaned up).

We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. We conclude that the 

ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating May’s claims, particularly in terms 

of analyzing the supportability and consistency of the proffered medical opinion evidence, 

see 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c (2022), and that the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by 

substantial evidence, accord Bowers v. Kijakazi, 40 F.4th 872, 875 (8th Cir. 2022) 

(recognizing that, under § 404.1520c, an applicant’s “treating physicians are not entitled to 

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1493 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
3

special deference,” and reviewing ALJ’s analysis under this regulation for substantial 

evidence). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the ALJ’s 

decision. May v. Comm’r Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 9:20-cv-02197-MGL (D.S.C. 

Feb. 28, 2022).

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: 22-1493 Doc: 26 Filed: 04/12/2023 Pg: 3 of 3