Joseph Schulte, III v. Frank Bisignano

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1588 Doc: 49 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 24-1588 JOSEPH JOHN SCHULTE, III, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. FRANK BISIGNANO, Commissioner of Social Security Administration, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Shiva Vafai Hodges, Magistrate Judge. (1:23-cv-04456-SVH) Submitted: December 23, 2025 Decided: December 30, 2025 Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph John Schulte, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Leach, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-1588 Doc: 49 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Joseph John Schulte, III, appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Schulte’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 discern no reversible error. The ALJ applied the correct legal standards in evaluating Schulte’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate judge’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Schulte v. Bisignano, No. 1:23-cv- 04456-SVH (D.S.C. Mar. 22, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts * We grant Schulte’s motion to exceed the page limitation for his informal brief. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 24-1588 Doc: 49 Filed: 12/30/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3