Lisa G. Mills v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-2254
LISA G. MILLS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-01688-CMC)
Submitted: September 30, 2019 Decided: October 10, 2019
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robertson H. Wendt, Jr., FINKEL LAW FIRM, LLC, North Charleston, South Carolina;
Sarah H. Bohr, BOHR & HARRINGTON, LLC, Atlantic Beach, Florida, for Appellant.
Sherri A. Lydon, United States Attorney, Barbara M. Bowens, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina;
Eric P. Kressman, Regional Chief Counsel, Taryn Jasner, Supervisory Attorney, Kristina
C.E. Cole, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Lisa G. Mills appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Mills’
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 and internal quotation marks
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, 810 F.3d 204, 207 (4th Cir. 2015) (citation
and internal quotation marks 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, 667 F.3d 470, 472 (4th Cir. 2012) (brackets, citation, and
internal quotation marks omitted).
We have reviewed the record and perceive no reversible error. The ALJ applied the
correct legal standards in evaluating Mills’ 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. See Mills v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec. Admin., No.
4:17-cv-01688-CMC (D.S.C. Aug. 21, 2018). We dispense with oral argument because

-- 2 of 3 --

3
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court
and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --