USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/31/2024     Pg: 1 of 3




                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                               No. 23-1575


        MEGAN WILSON,

                             Plaintiff – Appellant,

                      v.

        MARTIN J. O'MALLEY, Commissioner of Social Security,

                             Defendant – Appellee.



        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
        Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:22-cv-00087-RJC)


        Submitted: September 11, 2024                               Decided: December 31, 2024


        Before AGEE, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges.


        Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.


        ON BRIEF: George C. Piemonte, MARTIN, JONES & PIEMONTE, Charlotte, North
        Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David E.
        Somers, III, Attorney, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
        ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
        Baltimore, Maryland; Dena J. King, United States Attorney, David N. Mervis, Special
        Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575      Doc: 36         Filed: 12/31/2024     Pg: 2 of 3




        PER CURIAM:

               Petitioner Megan Wilson appeals the district court’s denial of Social Security

        disability benefits. She argues that the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) erred under

        Shelley C. v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration, 

 (4th Cir. 2023),

        by relying on objective findings from mental status examinations to discredit her subjective

        testimony about her symptoms. Because Wilson’s agency proceedings took place before

        Shelley C. was decided, the ALJ did not have the opportunity to consider its application to

        the instant case. And because Shelley C. was decided after briefing was complete in the

        district court, Wilson did not develop any arguments in that court about Shelley C.’s

        application beyond advising the court of Shelley C.’s existence.

               We are “a court of review, not of first view.” Lovelace v. Lee, 

        (4th Cir. 2006) (quoting Cutter v. Wilkinson, 

, 718 n.7 (2005)). In keeping

        with our understanding that the ALJ “should have the first opportunity to perform the

        applicable analysis,” we vacate the district court’s denial of benefits and remand to the

        Social Security Administration for consideration in light of Shelley C. Cf. Fusaro v.

        Cogan, 

, 263–64 (4th Cir. 2019) (remanding to trial court for initial

        consideration where issue had not been developed below); See v. Wash. Metro. Area

        Transit Auth., 

, 383–84 (4th Cir. 1994) (citing Dir., Off. of Workers’ Comp.

        Programs, U.S. Dep’t of Lab. v. Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co., 

                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-1575     Doc: 36         Filed: 12/31/2024    Pg: 3 of 3




        110, 115 (4th Cir. 1982)) (“[B]ecause the ALJ is the factfinder, the [Benefits Review

        Board] should not rule upon an issue before the ALJ has had an opportunity to consider it

        first.”).

                                          VACATED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS




                                                   3