Samantha Jeanne Gilmore v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
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 of 3 --

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 of 3 --