Terry McClellan v. Commissioner, Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1884
TERRY MCCLELLAN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Max O. Cogburn, Jr., District Judge. (1:23-cv-00322-MOC)
Submitted: October 1, 2025 Decided: December 23, 2025
Before NIEMEYER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Charlotte W. Hall, ARROWOOD AND HALL, PLLC, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Jean Godfrey,
Attorney, William Feldman, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL
SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Dena J. King, United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terry McClellan appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative
Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of McClellan’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 applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating McClellan’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. McClellan v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec. Admin.,
No. 1:23-cv-00322-MOC (W.D.N.C. Aug. 5, 2024). We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --