Case Name: Angela D. GOSNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-08
Citations: 713 F. App'x 216
Docket Number: No. 17-1509
Parties: Angela D. GOSNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 713
Pages: 216–217

Head Matter:
Angela D. GOSNELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 17-1509
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2018
Decided: February 8, 2018
Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa, Wisconsin, for Appellant. Nora Koch, Regional Chief Counsel, Brian O’Donnell, Deputy Regional Chief Counsel, Quinn Niblack Doggett, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Ap-pellee.
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Angela D. Gosnell appeals the district court's order adopting the magistrate judge's recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) denial of Gosnell's application for supplemental security income. "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 Gosnell'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. See Gosnell v. Berryhill, No. 9:15-cv-04271-TMC, 2017 WL 710543 (D.S.C. Feb. 23, 2017). 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