Porche Colvin v. Commissioner, Social Security

USCA4 Appeal: 25-1417 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 25-1417 PORCHE COLVIN, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER, SOCIAL SECURITY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Charles David Austin, Magistrate Judge. (1:24-cv-00797-CDA) Submitted: September 25, 2025 Decided: September 29, 2025 Before GREGORY and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Porche Colvin, Appellant Pro Se. Jean Godfrey, Special Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 25-1417 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Porche Colvin appeals the magistrate judge’s order * upholding the administrative law judge’s (ALJ) denial of Colvin’s 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) (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 Colvin’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate * The parties consented to disposition by a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 2 USCA4 Appeal: 25-1417 Doc: 8 Filed: 09/29/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 judge’s decision upholding the denial of benefits. Colvin v. Comm’r, Soc. Sec., No. 1:24- cv-00797-CDA (D. Md. Mar. 31, 2025). 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 3