Melvin Robinson, III v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: January 5, 2023
• Docket: 21-2258
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2258

MELVIN RICHARD ROBINSON, III,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (1:20-cv-00358-KDB)

Submitted: December 22, 2022 Decided: January 5, 2023

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Melvin Richard Robinson, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Melvin Richard Robinson, III, appeals the district court’s orders denying his motion

for appointment of counsel and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of

his applications for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income. “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) (cleaned up). “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)

(cleaned up). “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) (cleaned up).

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

correct legal standards in evaluating Robinson’s claims for benefits; the ALJ’s factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence; and Robinson’s challenge to the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2258 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

constitutionality of the ALJ’s appointment lacks merit. * We further conclude that the

district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Robinson’s motion for appointment

of counsel. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders. Robinson v. Comm’r of Soc.

Sec., No. 1:20-cv-00358-KDB (W.D.N.C. Dec. 14, 2020; Oct. 27, 2021). We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

* To the extent Robinson requests that we remand his case to the ALJ for consideration of new evidence, we lack authorization to do so. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (granting district courts, but not courts of appeals, authorization to remand social security case for consideration of new evidence in specified circumstances). And because Robinson did not move for the district court to remand his case under § 405(g), the issue of whether that court erred by failing to order such a remand is not properly before us.