Porche Colvin v. Commissioner, Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-1417
PORCHE COLVIN,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Charles David Austin, Magistrate Judge. (1:24-cv-00797-CDA)
Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025
Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Porche Colvin, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Godfrey, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Porche Colvin appeals the magistrate judge’s order* upholding the administrative
law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Colvin’s 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) (citation modified). “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 modified). “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)
(citation modified).
We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Colvin’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate
* The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(c).

-- 2 of 3 --

3
judge’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Colvin v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:24-
cv-00797-CDA (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2025). 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 --