Suzette Johnson v. MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1438
SUZETTE JOHNSON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:23-cv-00341-RBS-DEM)
Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024
Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Suzette Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Patrick Shean, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Suzette Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Johnson’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) (internal quotation marks and citation
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) (internal
quotation marks and citation 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) (internal quotation marks,
brackets, and citation omitted).
We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Johnson’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. Johnson v. O’Malley, No. 2:23-cv-00341-RBS-
DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

-- 2 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --