Court Opinion

ID: 9412234
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-28 21:01:56.530425+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:33.562091
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/27/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2343

        MICHAEL D. BELVEAL,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00493-CMH-MSN)

        Submitted: July 18, 2023                                          Decided: July 27, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for
        Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Hugham Chan,
        Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
        Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Michael D. Belveal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of

        Virginia Belveal’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) (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 perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

        correct legal standards in evaluating Belveal’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. Belveal v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-

        00493-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the

                                                      2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343      Doc: 14         Filed: 07/27/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

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

        argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                      AFFIRMED

                                                    3