UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JOHN C. RUSSELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 96-1822

SHIRLEY S. CHATER, COMMISSIONEROF

SOCIAL SECURITY,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Virginia, at Abingdon.

James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CA-92-95-A)

Submitted: April 8, 1997

Decided: April 25, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges,

and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ginger J. Largen, J. D. Morefield, MOREFIELD, KENDRICK,

HESS & LARGEN, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellant. James A.

Winn, Acting Chief Counsel, Region III, Masayo Howell, Assistant

Regional Counsel, Office of General Counsel, SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Robert P. Crouch,

Jr., United States Attorney, Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United

States

Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

John C. Russell filed a claim with the Social Security Administration in March 1991 for Supplemental Security Income, alleging disability commencing September 11, 1990, due to neck and back pain

and problems with his left arm. After denial and reconsideration,

Russell requested a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).

The ALJ decided that Russell was not disabled under the Social

Security Act. The Appeals Council denied Russell's request for

review. The ALJ's decision then became the Commissioner's final

decision. Russell filed an action seeking review of the final

decision

in district court. The district court remanded Russell's claim for

further development and review and utilization of a vocational expert.

An ALJ held a supplemental hearing at which a vocational expert

appeared and testified. The ALJ found that for the benefits period

in

question, Russell had the residual functional capacity to perform

light

work with certain non-exertional restrictions. The Appeals Council

denied Russell's subsequent request for review, and the ALJ's decision became the final decision of the Commissioner.

Russell filed a complaint in the district court challenging the

final

decision of the Commissioner after remand from the district court.

The parties each filed motions for summary judgment. A magistrate

judge recommended granting the Commissioner's motion for summary judgment and denying Russell's summary judgment motion.

The district court agreed with the recommendation and entered the

order. This appeal followed.

We review the Commissioner's final decision to determine whether

it is supported by substantial evidence and whether the correct law

was applied. See 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) (1994); Hays v. Sullivan, 907

F.2d 1453, 1456 (4th Cir. 1990). Russell claims that substantial

evidence does not support the ALJ's finding that Russell could perform

2
light work with some restrictions. However, the ALJ gave specific

reasons for his determination and we will not disturb it. See Hammond v. Heckler, 765 F.2d 424, 426 (4th Cir. 1985). The ALJ made

a thorough evaluation of the evidence, and we conclude that the

Commissioner's decision is supported by substantial evidence and was

based on the correct legal standards. The ALJ properly evaluated

Russell's complaints of pain. See Hyatt v. Sullivan , 899 F.2d 329,

337

(4th Cir. 1990). The ALJ also properly applied the treating

physician

rule when evaluating Russell's mental impairments in accordance

with 20 C.F.R. § 404.1527(d)(2) (1995).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

3