Court Opinion

ID: 9352564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-06 21:00:33.887333+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:45.334913
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/05/2023     Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 21-2258

        MELVIN RICHARD ROBINSON, III,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

                             Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00358-KDB)

        Submitted: December 22, 2022                                      Decided: January 5, 2023

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

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Melvin Richard Robinson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Melvin Richard Robinson, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion

        for appointment of counsel and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of

        his 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) (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 Robinson’s claims for benefits; the ALJ’s factual

        findings are supported by substantial evidence; and Robinson’s challenge to the

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258      Doc: 12         Filed: 01/05/2023      Pg: 3 of 3

        constitutionality of the ALJ’s appointment lacks merit. * We further conclude that the

        district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robinson’s motion for appointment

        of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Robinson v. Comm’r of Soc.

        Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00358-KDB (W.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2020; Oct. 27, 2021). 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

               *
                  To the extent Robinson requests that we remand his case to the ALJ for
        consideration of new evidence, we lack authorization to do so. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g)
        (granting district courts, but not courts of appeals, authorization to remand social security
        case for consideration of new evidence in specified circumstances). And because Robinson
        did not move for the district court to remand his case under § 405(g), the issue of whether
        that court erred by failing to order such a remand is not properly before us.

                                                     3