Adrienne Mallard v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-1499
ADRIENNE MALLARD,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Deputy Commissioner of Operations, Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Deborah Lynn Boardman, Magistrate Judge. (8:18-cv-03627-DLB)
Submitted: August 30, 2021 Decided: September 10, 2021
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Adrienne Mallard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Adrienne Mallard appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Mallard’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 Mallard’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate
judge’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Mallard v. Berryhill, No. 8:18-cv-
03627-DLB (D. Md. Mar. 23, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

-- 2 of 3 --

3
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --