Filed: November 4, 1997

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-1725

(CA-95-2745-HAR)

Glander Whitehead,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

Kenneth S. Apfel, etc.,

Defendant - Appellee.

ORDER

The Court amends its opinion filed October 20, 1997, as

follows:

On the cover sheet, section 2 -- the appellee's name is

corrected to read "Kenneth S. Apfel."

For the Court - By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

GLANDER WHITEHEAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1725

KENNETH S. APFEL, COMMISSIONER OF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

John R. Hargrove, Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-2745-HAR)

Submitted: April 15, 1997

Decided: October 20, 1997

Before HALL, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Robert R. Jenkins, Timothy E. Mering, Paul R. Schlitz, Jr., JENKINS,

BLOCK & MERING, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant.

Charlotte Hardnett, Chief Counsel, Region III, Nora Koch, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, DEPARTMENT

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Lynne A. Battaglia, United States Attorney, Allen F. Loucks,

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Glander Whitehead appeals the district court's order upholding the

decision of the Commissioner of Social Security finding that Whitehead was not entitled to disability insurance benefits or supplemental

security income. Because substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's decision, we affirm.

Whitehead was born in 1954. He has a ninth grade education and

previous work experience as a tractor-trailer driver. Whitehead

alleged disability commencing on August 13, 1991, because of cervical strain, right-side weakness, and headaches. Medical records reveal

that Whitehead underwent a cervical laminectomy for stenosis in

1991. Following the operation, Whitehead's ability to lift and carry

was limited, he suffered from bowel and bladder incontinence, and his

ability to reach, handle, push, and pull was markedly diminished. He

walked slowly, using a cane. His ability to sit for long periods was

not impaired.

Whitehead's headaches improved with medication. At his hearing

before an ALJ, he reported that his headaches occurred two or three

times a month and lasted about an hour. Whitehead also testified that

he used no brace or back support and took no medication for neck

pain. Whitehead said that he could lift five or six pounds and sit for

six hours during an eight-hour period. He spent his days watching

television.

A vocational expert (VE) testified that a person with Whitehead's

limitations, which the ALJ accurately described, could no longer perform his past relevant work but was capable of performing some jobs,

including security monitor. The jobs existed in significant numbers in

the region. After reviewing a medical report submitted after the hearing, the VE stated that Whitehead was limited to sedentary work. The

 2
ALJ found that, despite this limitation, Whitehead remained able to

perform the job of security monitor because that job did not require

standing.

Although Whitehead suffered from some sensory and functional

impairments, he remained capable of performing sedentary work.

After carefully examining all the evidence of record, including medical reports, the transcript of the hearing before the ALJ, and the posthearing opinion of the VE, we conclude that substantial evidence supports the Commissioner's determination that Whitehead is not disabled. See 42 U.S.C.A. § 405(g) (West 1994 & Supp. 1997).

We therefore affirm the decision of the magistrate judge.* We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

fully presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________

* With the parties' consent, a magistrate judge conducted the proceedings in this case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(c)(1), (c)(3) (1994).

 3