Court Opinion

ID: 9406116
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 21:01:53.794901+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.987169
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 21-2027

        GREGORY ANTHONY VANTRECE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00124-LO-MSN)

        Submitted: January 23, 2023                                       Decided: June 28, 2023

        Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Gregory Anthony VanTrece, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027      Doc: 16         Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Gregory Anthony VanTrece appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s

        (ALJ) denial of VanTrece’s applications for disability insurance benefits and 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) (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 VanTrece’s claims 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. VanTrece v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 1:20-cv-

        00124-LO-MSN (E.D. Va. Aug. 23, 2021). We also deny VanTrece’s motion to remove

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2027      Doc: 16        Filed: 06/28/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        online access to his case. 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

                                                    3