Jennifer Surrett v. Comissioner of Social Security

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-1227
JENNIFER SURRETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
COMISSIONER OF SOCIAL SECURITY,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Asheville. Kenneth D. Bell, District Judge. (1:23-cv-00106-KDB)
Submitted: December 13, 2024 Decided: January 14, 2025
Before GREGORY and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ON BRIEF: George C. Piemonte, MARTIN JONES & PIEMONTE, PC, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellant. Brian C. O’Donnell, Associate General Counsel, David E.
Somers, III, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Office of the General Counsel,
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Baltimore, Maryland; Dena J. King, United
States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Jennifer Surrett appeals the district court’s order upholding the Administrative Law
Judge’s (ALJ) denial of Surrett’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 Surrett’s 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. Surrett v. Commissioner, No. 1:23-cv-00106-
KDB (W.D.N.C Jan. 17, 2024). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

-- 2 of 3 --

3
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED

-- 3 of 3 --