Kimberly Ables v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1446
KIMBERLY ABLES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00102-JPB-MJA)
Submitted: April 11, 2024 Decided: April 15, 2024
Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Dana W. Duncan, DUNCAN DISABILITY LAW, S.C., Nekoosa,
Wisconsin, for Appellant. William Ihlenfeld, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Brian C. O’Donnell,
Associate General Counsel, David N. Mervis, Senior Attorney, Paul B. Waxler, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, Office of Program Litigation, Office of the General
Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kimberly Ables appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Ables’
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 record before
the ALJ was sufficiently developed for her to render a decision, she applied the correct
legal standards in evaluating Ables’ claims for benefits, and her factual findings are
supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment
upholding the denial of benefits. Ables v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:22-cv-00102-JPB-
MJA (N.D. W. Va. Feb. 23, 2023). 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 --