Pur s uantt o Fed. R . A pp. P. 43( c) ( 2) , M i chae l J . A s true i s s ubs t i tut ed for * J o A nne B . B arnhartas appel l ee i n thi s act i on. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, thi s panel has det erm i ned ** unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tthe det erm i nat i on of th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. T h is o rd e r a n d ju d g m e n t is notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptunderthe doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, how ever , fori t s per s uas i ve val ue c o n s is te n t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C ir . R . 3 2 .1 . 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### M ar c h 22,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E T E N T H C IR C U IT J OANN Y OUNG, P lain tiff-A p p e llan t, v . M I CH AEL J . ASTRU E, * C o m m iss io n e r o f

th e S o c ial S e c u rity A dm i ni s tr at i on, D efe ndant - A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6275 ( D. C. No . CI V- 0 5 - 1 2 3 9 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T ** B efor e HENR Y , BA LD OCK , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

P lai n ti ff Jo an n Y o u n g , p roc ee d ing p ro se , ap p ea ls from the d istri ct co u rt ’s ju d g m e n t affirm in g th e fin a l d e c isio n o f th e C o m m iss io n e r o f S o c ial S e c u rity deny i ng herdi s abi l i tyi ns ur ance benef i t s ( D I B ) underT i t l e I I of the Soci al-2-

S e c u r i tyAc t . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d 4 2 U. S . C. § 4 0 5 ( g ) a n d a ff

i rm. I. I n herappl i cat i on forD I B , M s . Y oung cl ai m ed di s abi l i tydue t o a bl ood d is o rd e r ( th a la s s e m ia ), a h e a rt c o n d itio n (a rr h yth m ia ), h yp e rt e n s io n , a n d a rt h ri tis . A ft erherappl i cat i on w as deni ed i ni t i al l yand upon r econs i der at i on, s he r eques t ed a n d re c e iv e d a d e n o v o h e a ri n g b e fo re a n a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e (A L J ). M s. Y o u n g ap p ea red w ith o u t cou n sel an d o ffere d test im o n y . A v o ca ti o n al ex p ert a l s o o ffe r e d t e s t i m o n y. In hi s deci si on , the A L J appli ed the fi ve-st ep sequ enti al evaluat i on process s e t fo rt h in 2 0 C .F .R . § 4 0 4 .1 5 2 0 (a )( 4 ). See ge ner al l y Wi l l i am s v. B ow en , 844 F. 2d 748, 750- 52 ( 10th C i r . 1988) ( expl ai ni ng s t eps i n det ai l ) . A ts t ep one, th e A L J fo u n d th a t M s. Y o u n g h a d n o t en g a g e d in a n ysu b sta n tial g a in f u l ac tiv ity s i nce he ral l eged ons etdat e. A ts t eps tw o and thr ee, the A L J found that M s. Y o u n g h a d a n u m b e r o f im p a irm e n ts, in c lu d in g a dju stm e n t d iso rd e r w ith m ix e d d e p re ss io n a n d a n x iety , tha las se m ia, h yp e rte n sio n , h yp o th yro id , g a stric r efl ux, m i l d degene r at i ve di s c di s eas e, and mi l d os t eoarthr i t i s . T he A L J found th a t, i n c o m b in a tio n , the se im p a irm e n ts w e re se v e re b u t n o t se v e re e n o u g h to m eetorm edi cal l yequal one of the i m pai r m ent s l i s t ed i n 20 C . F. R . , Par t404, Subpar tP, A ppendi x 1.-3-

Fi n d i n g M s . You n g ’ s s u bj e c t i v e c o mpl a i n t s n o tf u l l yc r e d i b l e , th e ALJ d e ter m in e d a t ste p fo u r th a t sh e re tain e d th e re sid u a l f u n c tio n a l ca p a c ity(R F C ) to

“ lift u p to 2 0 p o u n d s o c c a sio n a llya n d 1 0 p o u n d s f re q u e n tly ; sta n d a n d w a lk appr oxi m at el y6 hour s i n an 8- hourw or kday ; s i tappr oxi m at el y6 hour s i n an 8 - h o u rwo r k d a y ; a n d fo l l o w d i r e c t i o n s f r o m a s u p e r v i s o r . ” Ad mi n . R. a t1 6 . He f u rth e r fo u n d th a t sh e “ sh o u ld [ b e ] e x p e c ted to e x p e rie n c e so m e m ild to m o d e ra te di s comfortand anxi etyand s om e mi l d di ffi cul tyi n deal i ng w i th the publ i c. ” Id. In vi ew of h er R F C , the A L J foun d thatshe w as capab l e of p erform i ng her past r el evantw or k as a t el emar ket er , dat a entryw or ker , and hand pa ckage r , and ther efor e notdi s abl ed ats t ep fourof the pr oces s . T he A ppeal s C ounci l deni ed re v ie w , m a k in g th e A L J ’s d e c is io n th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s fin a l d e c is io n . See J ens en v. B arnh art , 4 3 6 F .3 d 1 1 6 3 , 1 1 6 4 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 5 ). M s. Y o u n g then fil ed a c o m p lai n t i n the d istri ct co u rtan d d em an d ed a jury tr i al . T he di s tr i ctj udge r efe rr ed M s . Y oung’ s compl ai ntt o a magi s tr at e j udge for a s u b mi s s i o n o f

fi n d i n g s a n d a r e c o mme n d a t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 636( b) ( 1) ( B ) and Fed. R . C i v. P. 72( b) . T he magi s tr at e j udge r ecomm ended thatthe di s tr i ctcourtaff i r m the C om m i s s i oner ’ s deci s i on. A ft ercons i der i ng M s. Y o u n g ’s tim e lyw ritten o bjec tio n s, th e d istric t co u rt a d o p ted th e m a g istra teO url ocal rul e r equi r es an appe l l antt o i ncl ude w i th heropeni ng br i ef a 1 co p yo f a m ag istrate jud g e’s rep o rtan d rec o m m en d ati o n w h en a d istri ct co u rt adopt s i t . 10th C i r . R . 28. 2( A ) ( 1) . B eca us e M s . Y oung di d noti ncl ude a c opyof the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r eportand r ecomm endat i on w i th heropeni ng br i ef, the C o m m is s io n e r w a s re q u ir e d to in c lu d e it w ith h is b ri e f. See 1 0 th Ci r . R. 2 8 . 2 ( B) ( “I f the appe l l ant ’ s br i ef fai l s t o i ncl ude al l the rul i ngs r equi r ed by( A ) , the appel l ee’ s br i ef musti ncl ude them. ”) . B eca us e the C om m i s s i onerdi d noti ncl ude a copyof the r eportand r ecomm endat i on, w e r emi nd hi m of hi s obl i gat i on t o do s o i n the futur e. -4- jud g e’s rep o rt an d rec o m m en d ati o n , rejected M s. Y o u n g ’s de m an d fo r a jury 1 tri al , and affirm ed the C om m i ssi on er’ s deci si on . M s. Y ou ng app eal s. II. M s . Y oung r ai s es tw o i s s ues on appea l . H erfi r s ti s s ue i s : “The SS A L aw Judg e and otherS S A determ i nati on offi ci al s di d n ot condu cta t rue and j ust exami nat i on of the Pl ai nt i ff’ s m edi cal r ecor ds . ” A pl t . B r . at3. She then s t at es onl ythatagenc yoffi ci al s s el ect ed medi cal dat a fr om herr ecor ds t o j us t i fythat s he does nothave s ever e i m pai r m ent s i ns t ead of r evi ew i ng herover al l m edi cal c o n d itio n . Id. D es pi t e the l i ber al r eadi ng w e gi ve t o the pl eadi ngs and other p a p e rs o f

p ro s e litig a n ts , s ee Hal lv. B el lm on , 9 3 5 F .2 d 1 1 0 6 , 1 1 1 0 & n .3 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 1 ), M s. Y o u n g ’s g e n e ra lize d a n d c o n c lu so rysta tem e n ts w h o llyfa il to f ra m e o r d e v e lo p a n yp e rc e iv e d e rr o r i n th e C o m m is s io n e r’ s d e c is io n . A ccor di ngl y , s he has w ai ved r evi ew of anydeci s i onal err or s i n the admi ni s tr at i ve p ro c e s s . S e e Mu rr e ll v. Sh a la la , 43 F. 3d 1388, 1390 n. 2 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng that“per funct orycompl ai nt s [that ] fai l t o fr ame and devel op an i s s ue [a r e] [in ]sufficien t t o inv o k e a p p ell ate rev iew ”).-5-

M s. Y o u n g ’s s e c o n d iss u e is th a t sh e w a s d e n ied h e r rig h t to a ju rytrial in the di s tr i ctcourt . W hetherM s . Y oung w as ent i t l ed t o a j urytr i al i s a ques t i on of la w th a t w e re v ie w d e n o v o . Mi l e High Indus . v. C ohen , 222 F. 3d 845, 855 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). T h e statute p rov iding fo r j u d ici al rev iew o f th e C o m m issi o n er’s deci s i on, 42 U . S. C . § 405( g) , i s a w ai verof the U ni t ed St at es ’ s over ei gn im m u n ity. See B ow en v. C i t y of New York , 4 7 6 U . S . 4 6 7 , 4 7 9 (19 8 6 ); Hui e v. B ow en , 7 8 8 F .2 d 6 9 8 , 7 0 5 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 8 6 ). “S in c e th e re is n o g e n e ra lly a p p lica b le ju rytrial rig h t th a t atta c h e s w h e n th e U n ited S tate s c o n se n ts to su it, the ac cept ed pr i nci pl es of s over ei gn i m m uni tyr equi r e thata j urytr i al r i ghtbe cl ear l ypr ovi ded i n the l egi s l at i on cr eat i ng the ca us e of a ct i on. ” Lehm an v. Naks hi an , 4 5 3 U . S . 1 5 6 , 1 6 2 n . 9 (19 8 1 ). Sect i on 405( g) does notcl ear l ypr ovi de a j urytr i al r i ght , and another s ubs ect i on of § 405 pr ovi des that“[n] o fi ndi ngs of fa ctordeci s i on of the C om m i s s i onerof Soci al Secur i tys hal l be r evi ew ed byanyper s on, tr i bunal , or g o v e rn m e n ta l a g e n c ye x c e p t a s h e re in p ro v id e d .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 4 0 5 (h ). T her efor e, C ongr es s di d notcl ear l ypr ovi de a j urytr i al r i ghti n the l egi s l at i on cr eat i ng a c a u s e o f a c t i o n fo rr e v i e w o f

a s o c i a l s e c u r i ty b e n e fi t s d e c i s i o n . C o n s e q u e n t l y, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt p ro p e rl yreje c te d M s . Y o u n g ’s d e m a n d fo r a ju ry tria l. See G i nterv. Sec’y of D ep’tof Health, E du c. , & Wel f are , 621 F. 2d 313, 313- 14 (8 th C ir. 1 9 8 0 ) (p e r c u ria m ) (h o ld in g th a t d istric t co u rt’s r o le u n d e r § 4 0 5 (g ) “ is lim ited to re v iew in g th e a d m in istra tiv e re c o rd to d e ter m in e w h e th e r th e re is-6-

s ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe fi ndi ngs of the [Com m i s s i oner ] ” and thatthe co u rt“c an n o t gran t a tri al de n o v o b efo re e ith er the co u rto r a jury ”). II I. T h e j u d g me n to f

th e d i s tr i c tc o u r ti s AF F I RMED . E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge