USCA4 Appeal: 24-1227 Doc: 20 Filed: 01/14/2025 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 2 of 3

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: 3 of 3

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

AFFIRMED