Court Opinion

ID: 9899898
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 21:00:31.266631+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:55.252171
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1536      Doc: 23         Filed: 11/16/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-1536

        SAMANTHA JEANNE GILMORE,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
        Orangeburg. Kaymani Daniels West, Magistrate Judge. (5:20-cv-02376-KDW)

        Submitted: November 9, 2023                                 Decided: November 16, 2023

        Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        ON BRIEF: W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES,
        Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Katie
        M. Gaughan, Supervisory Attorney, Naomi Mendelsohn, Special Assistant United States
        Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION OFFICE OF THE GENERAL
        COUNSEL, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Adair F. Burroughs, United States Attorney,
        Andrew R. de Holl, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1536        Doc: 23        Filed: 11/16/2023    Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Samantha Jeanne Gilmore appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the

        Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Gilmore’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) (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) (citation and internal quotation marks

        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) (brackets, citation, and internal quotation marks

        omitted).

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

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

        findings—including his determination of Gilmore’s residual functional capacity and

               *
                   Gilmore consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1536     Doc: 23        Filed: 11/16/2023     Pg: 3 of 3

        assessment of her subjective complaints—are supported by substantial evidence.

        Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits.

        Gilmore v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 5:20-cv-02376-KDW (D.S.C. Mar. 11, 2022).

        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