                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-2114


BETH L. EVANS,

                    Plaintiff - Appellant,

             v.

NANCY A. BERRYHILL,

                    Defendant - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00250-CCB)


Submitted: February 26, 2019                                 Decided: February 28, 2019


Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Beth L. Evans, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Beth L. Evans appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s

recommendation and upholding the Administrative Law Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Evans’

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 Evans’ claim for benefits, and the ALJ’s factual

findings are supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, although we grant Evans’

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment upholding the

denial of benefits. See Evans v. Berryhill, No. 1:17-cv-00250-CCB (D. Md. Aug. 23,

                                             2
2018). 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
