Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01227/USCOURTS-ca4-24-01227-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 863
Nature of Suit: Social Security - DIWC/DIWW (405(g))
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1227 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 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 

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1227 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-1227 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 3 of 3