Julius Lee Williams v. Nancy A. Berryhill
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [1000218939-2]. Originating case number: 1:17-cv-00016-LCB-LPA. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Julius Lee Williams. [17-2424]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JULIUS LEE WILLIAMS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00016-LCB-LPA)
Submitted: June 19, 2018
Decided: June 29, 2018
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James B. Craven, III, Durham, North Carolina, for Appellant. Maija DiDomenico,
Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Julius Lee Williams appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate
judge’s recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
Williams’ 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 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 Williams’ claims for benefits, and the ALJ’s
factual findings are supported by substantial evidence.
Accordingly, we affirm the
Pg: 3 of 3
district court’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. * See Williams v. Berryhill, No.
1:17-cv-00016-LCB-LPA (M.D.N.C. Dec. 1, 2017).
We deny Williams’ motion to
appoint counsel and 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.
To the extent that Williams requests remand based on the disability
determination of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services
(“NCDHHS”), which Williams submitted to the Appeals Council, we conclude that the
NCDHHS’s decision does not render the ALJ’s decision unsupported by substantial
evidence. See Meyer v. Astrue, 662 F.3d 700, 707 (4th Cir. 2011). We also reject
Williams’ contention that the district court did not spend enough time reviewing his case
following its receipt of his objections to the magistrate judge’s report and
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?