Neil Deon Roney v. KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2046
NEIL DEON RONEY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:21-cv-00422-REP-MRC)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 22, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Caeden Sehested, Melissa A. DelGuercio, OLINSKY LAW GROUP,
Syracuse, New York, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel,
Katie M. Gaughan, Supervisory Attorney, Mark J. Doval, Office of the General Counsel,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Jessica D. Aber,
United States Attorney, Jonathan H. Hambrick, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Neil Deon Roney appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Roney’s
application for 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 discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Roney’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. Roney v. Kijakazi, No. 3:21-cv-00422-REP-
MRC (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2022). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --