Dionne Saunders v. Nancy Berryhill


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 6:16-cv-00068-NKM-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000346683]. Mailed to: Dionne C. Saunders. [18-1377]

Download PDF
Appeal: 18-1377 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/10/2018 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-1377 DIONNE C. SAUNDERS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NANCY A. BERRYHILL, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Lynchburg. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (6:16-cv-00068-NKM-RSB) Submitted: July 31, 2018 Decided: August 10, 2018 Before KING, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dionne C. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se. Antonia Maria Adam, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 18-1377 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/10/2018 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Dionne C. Saunders appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Saunders’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 Saunders’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. See Saunders v. Berryhill, No. 6:16-cv-00068-NKM-RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 26, 2018). We dispense with oral argument 2 Appeal: 18-1377 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/10/2018 Pg: 3 of 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

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?