Neil Tony Washington v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2151
NEIL TONY WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
Molly Hughes Cherry, Magistrate Judge. (9:21-cv-00737-MHC)
Submitted: January 26, 2024 Decided: March 29, 2024
Before HEYTENS and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: W. Daniel Mayes, SMITH, MASSEY, BRODIE, GUYNN & MAYES,
Aiken, South Carolina, for Appellant. Adair F. Boroughs, United States Attorney, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina; Brian C.
O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David N. Mervis, Senior Attorney, William
Feldman, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Neil Tony Washington appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Washington’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 Washington’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate
judge’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Washington v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec.
Admin., No. 9:21-cv-00737-MHC (D.S.C. Sept. 7, 2022). We dispense with oral argument
* Washington consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

-- 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 --