IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN DIVISION No. 4:22-CV-126-D

CATHY M. CLEVE, ) -Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security, ) Defendant.

On January 17, 2024, Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. issued a Memorandum and Recommendation (“M&R”) and recommended that this court affirm defendant’s final decision. See [D.E. 17]. On January 29, 2024, plaintiff objected to the M&R [D.E. 18]. “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.,

(4th Cir. 2005) (cleaned up); see 28 US.C. § 636(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,

(quotation

_ Omitted). The court has reviewed the M&R, the record, and plaintiff's objections. 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. See

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.,

, 382-83 (4th Cir. 2021); Shinaberry v. Saul,

, 120 (4th Cir. 2020); Woods v. Berryhill,

(4th Cir. 2018) superseded on other grounds as recognized in Rogers v. Kijakazi,

, 878-80 (4th Cir. 2023); Walls v. Barnhart,

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

(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, 986 F.3d at 383. It “consists of more than a mere scintilla of evidence but ny be less than a preponderance.” Smith v. Chater,

(4th Cir. 1996); see Biestek,

; Dowling, 986 at 383; Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 120. This court may not reweigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner. See, e.g., Dowling, 986 F.3d at 383; Shinaberry, 952 F.3d at 123; Hays,

. 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 F.3d at 120; Sterling Smokeless Coal Co. v. Akers,

(4th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff's objections restate the arguments made to Judge Jones concerning whether the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) properly evaluated plaintiff's Residual Functional Capacity and that the ALJ failed to properly consider medical opinions and mischaracterized the vocational expert’s testimony. Compare [D.E. 11] 9-18, with [D.E. 18] 2-4. Judge Jones and the ALJ,

however, applied the proper legal standards. See M&R [D.E. 17] 1-14. Moreover, substantial evidence supports the ALJ’s analysis. Seeid. Thus, the court overrules the objections. In sum, the court OVERRULES plaintiff's objections to the M&R [D.E. 18], ADOPTS the conclusions in the M&R [D.E. 17], GRANTS defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings [D.E. 13), DENIES plaintiff relief [D.E. 11], AFFIRMS defendant’s final decision, and DISMISSES this action. The clerk shall close the case. SO ORDERED. This _2T day of February, 2024.

United States District Judge