Sherry Lee Hagy v. Commissioner for Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-1946
SHERRY LEE HAGY,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER FOR SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Abingdon. James P. Jones, Senior District Judge. (1:22-cv-00017-JPJ-PMS)
Submitted: March 21, 2025 Decided: March 26, 2025
Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Hugh F. O’Donnell, Norton, Virginia, for Appellant. Christopher R.
Kavanaugh, United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Roanoke, Virginia; Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David N. Mervis,
Special Assistant United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Sherry Lee Hagy appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Hagy’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’s decision
comported with the law of this circuit, including our decision in Shelley C. v. Comm’r of
Soc. Sec. Admin., 61 F.4th 341 (4th Cir. 2023), and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported
by substantial evidence. The ALJ considered all the evidence when evaluating Hagy’s
claim for benefits, and the record does not reflect that he improperly cherry-picked or

-- 2 of 3 --

3
mischaracterized the evidence in denying her claim. And the ALJ did not abuse his
discretion by declining to order a consultative examination regarding Hagy’s mental
impairments, as the record was sufficiently developed to allow the ALJ to render a decision
on Hagy’s claims. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1519a(b) (2024).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the denial of
benefits. Hagy v. Comm’r for Soc. Sec. Admin., No. 1:22-cv-00017-JPJ-PMS (W.D. Va.
July 13, 2023). 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 --