Michael D. Belveal v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 21-2343
MICHAEL D. BELVEAL,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00493-CMH-MSN)
Submitted: July 18, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023
Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for
Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Hugham Chan,
Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Michael D. Belveal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
Virginia Belveal’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 perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Belveal’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. Belveal v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-
00493-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --