Tametha Jones v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1333 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/10/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-1333
TAMETHA D. JONES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Mary Gordon Baker, Magistrate Judge. (2:20-cv-02398-MGB)
Submitted: April 27, 2023 Decided: May 10, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: William D. Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian O’Donnell, Regional Chief Counsel, Katie
M. Gaughan, Supervisory Attorney, M. Jared Littman, Special Assistant United States
Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Corey F. Ellis, United States Attorney, Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1333 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/10/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Tametha D. Jones appeals the magistrate judge’s order * upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Jones’ 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 Jones’ claims for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73.
2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-1333 Doc: 16 Filed: 05/10/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
judge’s judgment. Jones v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 2:20-cv-02398-MGB (D.S.C.
Jan. 26, 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