USCA4 Appeal: 20-2111 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2111
LEA-ANN RAINES,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Defendant - Appellee,
and
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Harrisonburg. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (5:19-cv-00039-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: January 25, 2022 Decided: April 18, 2022
Before HARRIS and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lea-Ann Raines, Appellant Pro Se. Evelyn Rose Marie Protano, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2111 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Lea-Ann Raines appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of
Raines’ 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 Raines’ 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. Raines v. Saul, No. 5:19-cv-00039-EKD-JCH
(W.D. Va. Sept. 29, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
USCA4 Appeal: 20-2111 Doc: 8 Filed: 04/18/2022 Pg: 3 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3