USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-1438

SUZETTE JOHNSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

MARTIN O’MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (2:23-cv-00341-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: November 14, 2024 Decided: November 18, 2024

Before THACKER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Suzette Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel Patrick Shean, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Suzette Johnson appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Johnson’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.,

(4th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation

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,

(4th Cir. 2015) (internal

quotation marks and citation 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,

(4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation marks,

brackets, and citation omitted).

We have reviewed the record and discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the

correct legal standards in evaluating Johnson’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. Johnson v. O’Malley, No. 2:23-cv-00341-RBS-

DEM (E.D. Va. Apr. 9, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1438 Doc: 13 Filed: 11/18/2024 Pg: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3