UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-2252

LAURE ANN KEFFER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:11-cv-00478-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: April 8, 2013 Decided: April 23, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark A. Black, BRUMBERG, MACKEY & WALL, P.L.C., Roanoke, 

Virginia, for Appellant. Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief 

Counsel, Victor J. Pane, Supervisory Attorney, Timothy Reiley, 

Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY 

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Timothy J. Heaphy, 

United States Attorney, Rick Mountcastle, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Laure Ann Keffer appeals the district court’s order

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the 

Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny her a period 

of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed the record 

and affirm.

Our review of the Commissioner’s disability 

determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are 

supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law 

was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th 

Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006)). 

“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable 

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.

(internal quotation marks 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.

On appeal, Keffer asserts that the administrative law 

judge’s (“ALJ”) residual functional capacity finding was not 

supported by substantial evidence. According to Keffer, the ALJ 

mischaracterized Keffer’s evidence relating to her daily 

activities, ignored the fact that her subjective complaints of 

pain were supported by the objective medical record, and 
3

improperly rejected a clinical assessment of pain completed by 

Dr. Bayliss, who was Keffer’s treating physician. Our review of 

the record convinces us otherwise. Contrary to Keffer’s 

contentions, substantial evidence supported the ALJ’s 

construction of the record, including his decision to partially 

discredit Keffer’s subjective complaints of pain in light of the 

objective medical evidence. See Johnson, 434 F.3d at 658. Nor 

do we discern any reversible error in the ALJ’s decision to give 

only limited weight to the terse and heavily-qualified opinion 

rendered by Dr. Bayliss. See Mastro v. Apfel, 270 F.3d 171, 178 

(4th Cir. 2001).

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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