UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-1191
DELOUS LYDA BURCH, (Mr.),
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL J. ASTRUE, Commissioner of Social Security
Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Martin K.
Reidinger, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00033-MR)
Submitted: August 2, 2012 Decided: August 13, 2012
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Vonno Lamar Gudger, III, GUDGER & GUDGER, P.A., Asheville, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Anne M. Tompkins, United States
Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Karla J. Gwinn, Special
Assistant United States Attorney, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Delous Lyda Burch appeals the district court’s order
upholding the Commissioner of Social Security’s decision to deny
him a period of disability insurance benefits. We have reviewed
the record and affirm.
Our review of the Commissioner’s disability
determination is limited to evaluating whether the findings are
supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law
was applied. See Johnson v. Barnhart, 434 F.3d 650, 653 (4th
Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (2006)).
“Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable
mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.
(internal quotation marks omitted). We do not reweigh evidence
or make credibility determinations in evaluating whether a
decision is supported by substantial evidence; “[w]here
conflicting evidence allows reasonable minds to differ,” we
defer to the Commissioner’s decision. Id.
Burch complains on appeal that the administrative law
judge’s (“ALJ’s”) residual functional capacity (“RFC”) finding
was not supported by substantial evidence. According to Burch,
the ALJ failed to properly determine Burch’s limitations on a
function-by-function basis, erred in his credibility assessment
of Burch’s testimony, and improperly accorded greater weight to
the consultative physicians’ reports than to the opinions of
2
Burch’s treating physicians. Our review of the record convinces
us otherwise. Contrary to Burch’s assertions, we conclude that
the ALJ’s review of Burch’s abilities comported with Social
Security Ruling 96-8p, the ALJ’s decision to discredit Burch’s
subjective complaints of the intensity of his symptoms was
supported by substantial evidence, and the ALJ’s decision to
rely on the opinions of the consultative physicians was not
improper.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district
court. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
3