Court Opinion

ID: 9929726
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:00:41.498076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:45:08.510383
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1513      Doc: 27         Filed: 02/02/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-1513

        TRACEY KING,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        MARTIN J. O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security Administration,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00687-HEH-MRC)

        Submitted: January 30, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Horace F. Hunter, HUNTER & EVERAGE, PLLC, Richmond, Virginia, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Elizabeth C. Wu, Assistant United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia,
        for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1513      Doc: 27          Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Tracey King appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

        magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of King’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) (internal quotation marks and citation

        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) (internal

        quotation marks and citation 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) (internal quotation marks,

        brackets, and citation omitted).

               We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

        correct legal standards in evaluating King’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual

        findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1513      Doc: 27        Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 3 of 3

        order upholding the denial of benefits. * King v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-00687-HEH-MRC

        (E.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2023). 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

               *
                Like the district court, we find no support for King’s claim that the ALJ should
        have permitted her to further question the vocational expert about a purported conflict
        between the Dictionary of Occupational Titles and information from the Department of
        Labor Occupational Information Network.

                                                    3