Court Opinion

ID: 9374414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-22 21:00:40.627051+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:46.994400
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1325      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/21/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1325

        MONICA PATTERSON,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
        Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:20-cv-01030-CCE-LPA)

        Submitted: February 16, 2023                                 Decided: February 21, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit
        Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Derrick Kyle Arrowood, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Brian O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Katie M. Gaughan,
        Supervisory Attorney, Diana Lin, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL
        SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Sandra J. Hairston, United
        States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North
        Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1325      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/21/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Monica Patterson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

        recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Patterson’s

        application for disabled widow’s 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. The ALJ applied the

        correct legal standards in evaluating Patterson’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. Patterson v. Kijakazi, No. 1:20-cv-01030-

        CCE-LPA (M.D.N.C. Feb. 24, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1325     Doc: 18         Filed: 02/21/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

        and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                 AFFIRMED

                                                   3