UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-2362
WENDY FRICK LONG,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
KILOLO KIJAKAZI, Acting Commissioner of Social Security Administration,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Greenville. Kevin Frank McDonald, Magistrate Judge. (6:19-cv-02736-KFM)
Submitted: February 10, 2022 Decided: February 23, 2022
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: Samuel M. Price, Jr., Newberry, South Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C.
O’Donnell, Acting Regional Chief Counsel, Thomas Moshang, Supervisory Attorney,
Katie M. Gaughan, Assistant Regional Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; M. Rhett DeHart, Acting United States
Attorney, Tina Cundari, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendy Frick Long appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the
Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Long’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 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 Long’s claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual
findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we affirm the magistrate
judge’s judgment upholding the denial of benefits. Long v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., No. 6:19-
cv-02736-KFM (D.S.C. Oct. 26, 2020). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3