Michael Belveal v. Commissioner of Social Security

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: July 27, 2023
• Docket: 21-2343
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-2343

MICHAEL D. BELVEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00493-CMH-MSN)

Submitted: July 18, 2023 Decided: July 27, 2023

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

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Clifford M. Farrell, MANRING & FARRELL, Columbus, Ohio, for Appellant. Jessica D. Aber, United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, Hugham Chan, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Michael D. Belveal appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of

Virginia Belveal’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., 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 Belveal’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. Belveal v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 1:20-cv-

00493-CMH-MSN (E.D. Va. Oct. 1, 2021). We dispense with oral argument because the

2 USCA4 Appeal: 21-2343 Doc: 14 Filed: 07/27/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED