Court Opinion

ID: 9396906
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-23 21:00:57.407111+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:19.741329
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-2043      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/22/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-2043

        DEENA L. MUSSELMAN,

                            Plaintiff - Appellant,

                     v.

        KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,

                            Defendant - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
        Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (7:21-cv-00039-MFU-RSB)

        Submitted: May 18, 2023                                           Decided: May 22, 2023

        Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Deena L. Musselman, Appellant Pro Se. Maija DiDomenico, Assistant Regional Counsel,
        SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2043      Doc: 10         Filed: 05/22/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Deena L. Musselman appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate

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

        Musselman’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 discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

        correct legal standards in evaluating Musselman’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. Musselman v. Kijakazi, No. 7:21-cv-00039-

        MFU-RSB (W.D. Va. July 28, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

                                                     2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2043     Doc: 10         Filed: 05/22/2023   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