UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-2381

DEREK JOSEPH MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant – Appellee,

and

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Party-in-Interest.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, 

Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00017-JPB-JES)

Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 20, 2012

Before DIAZ, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carter Zerbe, CARTER ZERBE & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, Charleston, West 

Virginia, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Acting Regional Chief 

Counsel, Andrew C. Lynch, Acting Supervisory Counsel, SOCIAL 

SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; William J. 

Ihlenfeld, II, United States Attorney, Chantal Jenkins, Special
2

Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Derek Moore appeals the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his complaint for review of the Commissioner’s denial 

of disability insurance benefits. On appeal, Moore argues that 

the Commissioner ignored relevant medical evidence, failed to 

accord proper weight to medical opinion evidence, and failed to 

analyze the combined effect of his impairments in determining 

that he was not entitled to benefits. 

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006), we will “uphold 

the factual findings of the Commissioner if they are supported 

by substantial evidence and were reached through application of 

the correct legal standard.” Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 

653 (4th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks, citations, and 

alteration omitted). “Substantial evidence is such relevant 

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Id. (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). We do not reweigh evidence or make 

credibility determinations in evaluating whether a decision is 

supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here conflicting evidence 

allows reasonable minds to differ,” we defer to the 

Commissioner’s decision. Id.

In order to establish entitlement to benefits, a 

claimant must provide evidence of a medically determinable 
4

impairment that precludes returning to past relevant work and 

adjustment to other work. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.1508, 404.1520(g) 

(2012). The Commissioner uses a five-step process to evaluate a 

disability claim. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520 (2011). Pursuant to 

this process, the Commissioner asks, in sequence, whether the 

claimant: (1) worked during the alleged period of disability; 

(2) had a severe impairment; (3) had an impairment that met or 

equaled the severity of a listed impairment; (4) could return to 

his past relevant work; and (5) if not, could perform any other 

work in the national economy. Id. The claimant bears the 

burden of proof at steps one through four, but the burden shifts 

to the Commissioner at step five. See Bowen v. Yuckert, 482 

U.S. 137, 146 n.5 (1987). If a decision regarding disability 

can be made at any step of the process, however, the inquiry 

ceases. 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude 

that the Commissioner’s decision is supported by substantial 

evidence and was reached through application of the correct 

legal standards. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED