Kelly Reynerson v. Commissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-2000

KELLY ANN REYNERSON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Statesville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00043-KDB-DCK)

Submitted: July 14, 2026 Decided: August 12, 2026

Before QUATTLEBAUM and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Samuel F. Furgiuele, Jr., Boone, North Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C.
O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, Lawrence J. Cameron, Acting United States
Attorney, Kenneth Di Vito, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of Program
Litigation, Office of the General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Kelly Ann Reynerson appeals the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s
(ALJ) denial of Reynerson’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) (citation
modified). “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) (citation
modified). “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) (citation modified).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Reynerson’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. Reynerson v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 5:23-
cv -00043-KDB-DCK (W.D.N.C. Aug. 6, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because

3

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED