IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ‘ EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:20-CV-231-D

CATINA J. CHAPMAN PROSISE, ) phan) ) : a . v. ) ORDER KILOLO KAKAZI, __ : 5 . Acting Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant.

On April 29, 2022, Magistrate Judge Swank issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that this court deny plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E.20], grant defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (DE. 23], and affirm defendant’s final decision. See [D.E. 27]. On May 9, 2022, plaintiff objected to the M&R [D.E. 28]. On May 10, 2022, defendant responded [D.E. 29]. “The Federal Magistrates Act requires a district court to make a de novo determination of those portions of the magistrate judge’s report or specified proposed findings or recommendations ‘to which objection is made.” Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d3 10, 315 (4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see

(b)(1). Absent a timely objection, “a district court need - not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Diamond, 416 F.3d at 315 (quotation omitted). ‘ .

The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's obj ections. As for those portions of the M&R to which plaintiff made -no objection, the court is satisfied that there is no clear error on

the face of the record. The court has reviewed de novo the portions of the M&R to which plaintiff objected. The scope of judicial review of a final decision concerning disability benefits under the Social Security Act,

et seq., is limited to determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s factual findings and whether the Commissioner applied the correct legal standards. See, e.g.,

(g); Dowling v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin.,

(4th Cir. 2021); Shinaberry v. Saul,

(4th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Berryhill,

,

- 692-93 (4th Cir. 2018); Walls v. Barnhart,

(4th Cir. 2002); Hays v. Sullivan, 907 □

F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Substantial evidence is evidence “a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v. Perales,

(1971) (quotation omitted); see Biestek v. Berryhill,

(2019); Dowling,

. It “consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but may be less than a preponderance.” Smith v. Chater, 99 Fad 635, 638 (4th Cir. 1996); see Biestek,

; Dowling,

; Shinaberry,

. This court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See, e.g., Dowling,

; Shinaberry,

; Hays, 907 F.2d at 1456. Rather, in determining whether substantial evidence supports the Commissioner’s decision, the court examines whether the Commissioner analyzed the relevant evidence and sufficiently explained her findings and rationale concerning the evidence. See, e.g., Shinaberry, 952 B3dat 120; Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers,

(4th Cir. 1997).

Plaintiff objections state conclusions. In total, plaintiff objects to “the finding that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the ALJ’s decision” and to “the finding that support the ALJ’s credibility determination of the [p]laintiff.” See [D.E. 28] 1.

Judge Swank and the ALJ applied the proper legal standards. See M&R [D.E. 27] 2-9. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis. See

Thus, the court overrules the objections.

In sum, the court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 28], ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 27], DENIES plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 20], GRANTS defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 23], AFFIRMS defendant’s final decision, and DISMISSES this action. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This 24 day of May, 2022.

it S C. DEVER III United States District Judge